At just about that mo- ment, a snapping ... light sound, like a screen door shutting. He fired again. ... half for us to eat. With her kn .... Miller said, âI don't mind the frog, but I want no part of the snake." ..... âI've had copperheads," sh

I have many people to thank for their support, not only during the time I was researching and writing this dissertation, but also during the span of my graduate studies at Penn. The mentions here are brief, but they are heartfelt. Many thanks to my committee, without whom this dissertation would not be possible. Julie Legate has been a supportive advisor who was always ready to look at my data, read through drafts and return comments. I learned syntax from Julie, but more importantly, she brought out my best work throughout my training at Penn; every page of this dissertation has directly or indirectly benefited from her comments or suggestions. David Embick and Florian Schwarz have also contributed in significant ways to my development as a linguist. Dave always has an interesting comment or suggestion that leads me to think about the larger context and implications of my work, and I was introduced to morphology in his classes. Florian taught me semantics, and has been a patient reader for various drafts of papers; I regret that there isnt more semantics in this dissertation. I have been fortunate to have faculty members at Penn who are engaging and passionate about what they do: Alison Biggs, Gene Buckley, Jami Fisher, Bill Labov, Tony Kroch, Mark Liberman, Rolf Noyer, Don Ringe, Gillian Sankoff, Beatrice Santorini and Meredith Tamminga. Thanks to Meredith for talking to me about syntax and variation, especially when I was thinking about a potential dissertation topic, and thanks to Alison for collaborating with me on prepositions. In the main office, Amy Forsyth always had time to answer a question or fix an administrative problem; thanks for making the department run smoothly. Additionally, the University of Pennsylvania has supported my work through the GAPSA-Provost Award for Interdisciplinary Innovation, and a Teece Fellowship for dissertation research. Thanks to my cohort, Taylor Jones, Karen Wen-Hsin Tseng and David Wilson, who weathered the first year of grad school with me. The students, postdocs, and visitors who overlapped with me at Penn contributed to an overall atmosphere of hard work, stimulating conversation and mutual encouragement, and they made the journey more enjoyable: Luke Adamson, Faruk Akkus¸, Akiva Bacovcin, Ryan Budnick, Pleng Chanchaochai, Sunghye Cho, Ava Creemers, Kajsa Dj¨arv, Sabriya Fisher, Aaron Freeman, Amy Goodwin Davies, Duna Gylfad´ottir, Anton Ingason, Tricia Irwin, Ava ˇ Irani, Soohyun Kwon, Nari Rhee, Milena Sereikait˙ e, Kobey Shwayder, Einar Sigurąsson, Betsy Sneller, Robert Wilder and J´er´emy Zehr. Conversations with a number of linguists at conferences and talks have contributed to my research in significant ways; I especially acknowledge input from Edith Aldridge, I Wayan Arka, Abby Cohn, Mitcho Erlewine, Bradley McDonnell, Norvin Richards, Anna Szabolcsi and Ekarina Winarto. I was fortunate to take a class taught by Idan Landau, whose input was valuable as I was working on crossed control. I also acknowledge a debt to Bill Davies, whose comprehensive grammar of Madurese has been a valuable resource; he corresponded with me via email, and I regret that he passed away before I could meet him in person. My main consultant, Bapak Isya Mahfud, has contributed more data and insights to this dissertation than anyone else, and his facility with multiple languages is invaluable. I also thank Ibu Maimuna for checking data with me, for helping me get around when I was traveling alone, and for iii

her longtime friendship. Mator sakalangkong. An army of people made my research in Indonesia fruitful and interesting. I have been fortunate to collaborate with Indonesian university students, who worked as my interns during the summer of 2015 and also cheerfully became language consultants (alphabetized by first given name): Iline Megale, Gabriella Melody, Ilkham Hidayat, M Khoirun Najib, and Nadhilah H Semendawai. I also gratefully acknowledge other consultants that provided data for Indonesian languages: Ayunda, Hainona Izza Golia, Risa, Saiful, Willy, and in Philadelphia, Dinah Maria. A number of people provided logistical support for me to conduct research in East Java. Professor Lilis Lestari Wilujeng at Ma Chung University connected me to undergraduate students. Bapak Billy T. Mbiliyora and the staff at KPN graciously allowed me to use classroom space and were always welcoming whenever I visited Malang. During my trips to Indonesia in 2015 and 2017, good friends smoothed the journey, especially Esther Heath, Mira Kim and Sarah Samoff, who made time for conversation over a meal when I showed up in town. Mira connected me to students at UNISMA in 2015 and again in 2017, which led to productive relationships. Thanks, Jonathan and Esther, for also opening your home for me to stay. Terima kasih banyak semuanya. In Philadelphia and beyond, I received support and care from the kindness of wonderful friends. Sharon Song went out of her way to send me notes and gifts out of the blue, just because. Thanks to Elizabeth McGee Hassrick for chats about academia, and to Jenn Lee for coming by once in a while to cheer me up. Paula Yoo gave me a lot of practical help, and opened her home to my kids. Lindsay Kijewski is my biggest cheerleader, and always had a smile and a hug for me. Thanks especially to Lindsay, Jonathan Wood, Umi Howard and my Lipman cohort for making my fourth year a meaningful one. Thanks also to Anne Ferola and CHIP for a great team dynamic and an interesting project. Finally, my family. Young and Yeuhee Lee always had an open door for me to come to work and sleep, and fed me round the clock. My mother has been a rock of unconditional love, faith and support throughout my whole life, and a role model for what it looks like to be a full-time working mother holding it all together. My father, Jun Imatome, had an extensive library and spoke three languages fluently: I am sure he planted the original seed that grew into my interest in language, and I wish I could thank him now. Thanks also go to my siblings and their spouses: Naomi, Marvin, Chris, David, Molly and Susie. I owe a lot to Naomi, who fielded my late night texts and calls: I made it! Thanks to my in-laws, for being welcoming and supportive; Tracy especially came down to Philly to help when it was most needed. BumJun, Amelia and Noah have been part of this journey from day one, and have made sacrifices so that I could pursue my Ph.D. They have been with me through the valleys, the late nights, irregular hours, and travel away from home for conferences and research. They have also been the constant that has sustained me throughout these five years. This is for them, and because of them. Thank you.

iv

ABSTRACT OPTIONAL ELEMENTS IN INDONESIAN MORPHOSYNTAX Helen Jeoung Julie Anne Legate This dissertation investigates the syntax and morphology of several functional morphemes that display surface optionality in Indonesian. I consider how syntactic environments constrain optional realization in three case studies. Chapter 2 investigates the declarative complementizers bahwa and kalau. I find that bahwa and kalau are not only disallowed in case of A-bar movement, but also that bahwa is disallowed in wh-in situ questions that do not involve movement. These facts are developed into an analysis of wh-phrases and the structure of wh questions in Indonesian. I also argue that the morpheme yang, as well as the null form of the complementizer, constitute a pattern of morphological wh-agreement on C. In Chapter 3 I consider the verbal prefixes meN- and ber-, which have received varied analyses in the literature. I propose that meN- and ber- participate in wh-agreement resulting from A-bar movement, and argue against previous analyses that assume that A-movement results in a similar deletion. In addition, I differentiate between deterministic properties that are relevant in the syntax, and non-deterministic properties of meN- and ber- that are extra-syntactic. I propose that this distinction accounts for a number of puzzling properties that have been observed for these prefixes. Chapter 4 discusses possessor sub-extraction in Indonesian, with additional data from similar constructions in Javanese and Madurese. I pursue a novel analysis of the nominal suffix -nya, which is optional is possessive DPs; I argue that in possessor extraction, this suffix is a pronunciation of the head D. I extend the analysis of wh-agreement to the DP domain, arguing that -nya marks A-bar movement on phase heads, with the consequence that DP is a phase for syntactic movement. One language-specific finding in this dissertation is that morphological whagreement applies across three domains: complementizers, verbs and possessive nominals. This has cross-linguistic implications for the phasehood of DP and wh-agreement patterns. More broadly, the dissertation contributes a syntactic approach to the analysis of variable morphemes, revealing how multiple factors constrain surface optionality.

CHAPTER 1 Introduction In this dissertation I investigate the syntax and morphology of functional elements that display optionality. Three case studies are presented in this dissertation, each of which discusses one or more optional morphemes in Indonesian. The first case study examines the declarative complementizers bahwa and kalau and their alternation with other forms of C; the second discusses the verbal prefixes meN- and ber-; the third observes the effect of possessor extraction on the nominal suffix -nya that occurs in possessive DPs. These morphemes display surface optionality, as illustrated in the examples below:

An individual speaker produces both the overt form and the non-overt form; the optional morpheme may be present or omitted without any semantic consequence. This dissertation, then, is concerned with the grammar of individual speakers, and the (intraspeaker) variability displayed by particular morphemes, rather than variability among speakers or variability among different languages/varieties. Additionally, this dissertation is primarily concerned with syntactic structure and 1

operations that are relevant to the optional morphemes. Two overarching questions drive this research. These are concerned with the interaction between syntax and optionality: (a) Which syntactic conditions constrain the surface optionality of the morpheme(s)? (b) How does syntax interact with extra-syntactic factors to produce the overall distribution of the optional forms? Each case study addresses the questions in both (a) and (b). Because Indonesian has a number of different functional morphemes that display surface optionality, this makes it possible to investigate several different domains within one language (complementizers, verbal structure, possessive nominals), while also observing interactions among these three elements within a single clause. The approach to Question (a) begins with a descriptive account of the full range of variability displayed by the morpheme(s), with a particular focus on contexts in which the morpheme is not variable. This dissertation contributes novel data from colloquial spoken Indonesian (and the related languages Javanese and Madurese), with the goal of presenting observations and patterns that have not been previously noted in the literature on these languages. Question (a) is concerned with taking optionality seriously as part of syntactic analysis. Question (b) takes an integrative approach to optionality by examining several factors that affect optionality. This line of research is partially motivated by incomplete treatments of variable morphosyntactic phenomena which do not include variability as a formal component of the analysis. For example, the optional nature of meN- in clauses such as (2) has been long observed (Wouk 2004; Sneddon 1996; Sneddon et al. 2012). However, optional meN- is usually assumed to be “optional pronunciation” or “optional dropping” of the morpheme. This assumes that the optionality is a PF phenomenon that has nothing to do with morphosyntax; cursory mentions of this optional property omit any obligatory contexts in which the morpheme is required or disallowed. I assume that a comprehensive account of the optional morphemes under study requires understanding of the semantic and syntactic structure, as well as post-syntactic (morphophonological) factors and 2

extra-grammatical (pragmatic, discourse-related) factors. The overall picture that emerges from this approach is that the distribution of these functional morphemes in Indonesian can only be accounted for by integrating: 1) semantico-syntactic operations and structure building, and 2) extra-syntactic factors that influence post-syntactic variability. While the scope of this investigation is a language-internal account of variable elements in Indonesian grammar, this research has cross-linguistic implications for our understanding of clause structure more generally. I present findings that have consequences for our general understanding of complementizer systems and wh-in situ questions; patterns of wh-agreement across several domains; the phasehood of CP, VoiceP and DP; and possessor extraction. This dissertation also contributes a syntactic treatment of morphemes that display optionality, with consequences for analyses of surface variation cross-linguistically.

1.1. Standard and colloquial varieties of Indonesian It is well-known among researchers studying Indonesian that Standard Indonesian (or Bahasa Indonesia, ISO: ind), the national language of Indonesia, is a prescriptive variety that few speakers claim as their native language. Standard Indonesian is used for official activities such as education, business and government (see Sneddon 2003 for an overview and history). Colloquial Indonesian, on the other hand, is not a monolithic variety but rather a diverse set of varieties of Indonesian spoken by communities throughout Indonesia. While Standard Indonesian is well-documented in grammars (Macdonald and Dardjowidjojo 1967; Dardjowidjojo 1978; Sneddon 1996; Sneddon et al. 2012; among others), colloquial varieties of Indonesian are generally under-described or undocumented (with some exceptions, such as Sneddon (2006), which describes colloquial Jakartan Indonesian). This dissertation is primarily concerned with the variety of colloquial Indonesian that is spoken on the island of Java (outside of Jakarta), particularly East Java. Colloquial Indonesian differs from Standard Indonesian in a number of ways, but the two varieties are not completely distinct; many clauses are well-formed in both varieties. The distinction between Standard Indonesian and colloquial Indonesian should not be understood as the difference between formal and informal 3

speech, which is an over-simplification. Although Standard Indonesian is associated with formal situations and considered stiff if used in daily conversation, colloquial Indonesian is not strictly informal. By referring to colloquial Indonesian, I mean the variety of language that is used spontaneously by speakers in everyday situations, and about which speakers have intuitions concerning grammaticality and acceptability. Colloquial Indonesian, then, incorporates both informal, familiar speech as well as formal, polite speech (as when speaking to an important person or an elder). Throughout this dissertation, data is generally from colloquial Indonesian, except where data is drawn from written sources; all data from written sources has also been checked for naturalness. One final note about Malay. Indonesian and Malay are closely related varieties, although their syntax, morphology and phonology deviate in a number of significant ways. I cite literature on Malay where it is significant to the analysis, but I do not assume that generalizations from Malay will always carry over to Indonesian. I have indicated wherever other sources are based on Malay data.

1.2. Data and methods The speakers providing data for this research are from the island of Java, and were educated in Standard Indonesian (speakers have at least a high school education; most have university education as well). All speakers speak some colloquial variety of Indonesian on a daily basis with friends, other students, colleagues, and strangers. In addition, all speakers, except one, is fluent in at least one other language that is used in the home; these languages included Javanese and Madurese, which are also prominent on the island of Java. Research with Indonesian-speaking consultants took place over several periods, between 2015 and 2018. The research was conducted in several locations, primarily with speakers living in East Java, Indonesia, and also in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In addition, part of this research was also conducted by communicating over the internet with Indonesian speakers with whom I had established a previous working relationship during in-person research. All examples have been checked by at least one speaker other than the speaker who first provided the data.

4

1.3. Outline of the dissertation In Chapter 2, I investigate the complementizers bahwa and kalau, which introduce embedded declarative clauses. I show that kalau is an informal variant of C, while bahwa is a more formal variant. Additionally, I claim that yang and null C are part of the complementizer system in Indonesian; this proposal is the first to identify four forms of declarative C. Bahwa and kalau are optional in many embedded clauses. However, they are not completely in free variation with a null form: bahwa and kalau are disallowed in case of A-bar movement, which was first observed by Saddy (1991). I argue that this pattern is a type of wh-agreement on C. I also demonstrate thatyang and null C also participate in wh-agreement, and instantiate a new pattern of wh-agreement that has not previously been attested (cf. Reintges et al. (2006)). Another novel finding in this chapter is that bahwa is disallowed in wh-in situ questions that do not involve movement. These facts are developed into an analysis of wh-phrases and the structure of wh questions in Indonesian. In Chapter 3 I consider the verbal prefixes meN- and ber-, which have received varied analyses in the literature. Taking meN- and ber- to occupy the position of the function head Voice, I propose that meN- and ber- participate in morphological wh-agreement: A-bar movement through SpecVoiceP requires a null prefix. I argue against previous analyses that assume that A-movement also has the same morphological effect. In addition, I differentiate between deterministic properties that are relevant in the syntax, and non-deterministic properties of meN- and ber- that are extrasyntactic. I propose that this distinction accounts for a number of puzzling properties that have been observed for these prefixes. Chapter 4 discusses possessor sub-extraction in Indonesian, with additional data from similar constructions in Javanese and Madurese. I show that a clefted possessor occurring at the left periphery of the clause is not merged in this high position, but rather that it is extracted from its possessive DP, leaving the possessum in situ. The possessor undergoes successive-cyclic A-bar movement through the clause, resulting in wh-agreement. One consequence of this investigation is a novel analysis for the nominal suffix -nya, which is optional is possessive DPs. I argue that in possessor extraction, this suffix is a pronunciation of the head D. I extend the analysis of wh-agreement to the 5

DP domain, arguing that -nya marks A-bar movement on phase heads, with the consequence that DP is a phase for syntactic movement. Chapter 5 concludes.

6

CHAPTER 2 Complementizers 2.1. Introduction 2.1.1. Surface alternations in C In this chapter I discuss the Indonesian complementizers bahwa, kalau and yang, as well as the absence of an overt complementizer, which I refer to as null C. In some contexts, realization of these forms is deterministic, resulting in obligatory forms of C. In other contexts however, the form of C is purely optional, in the sense that semantic differences do not arise from the choice of form. The overall goal of this chapter is to demonstrate that accounting for the distribution of complementizers in Indonesian requires an analysis of the syntax and semantics of C; an explanation of surface variability among (bahwa, kalau, yang and null C must incorporate grammatical factors. As a brief overview of the data, these complementizers occur in finite clauses, including both declarative and interrogative sentences. In sentences such as (5), the complementizer that introduces an embedded declarative clause may occur as bahwa, kalau or null C (represented as ∅). This is an optional alternation among the three realizations of C. (6) illustrates a different pattern. The wh word siapa ‘who’ has moved from an embedded clause, and occurs in a sentence-initial position, where it must be followed by yang. I propose that yang is not a focus marker, as has been suggested in the literature, but rather that it is a form of C that alternates with bahwa and null C.

In the embedded clause from which the wh word has been extracted, all overt forms are disallowed and null C is required. I discuss the implications of this data for our understanding of wh-agreement

7

in complementizer systems, both for Indonesian and cross-linguistically. Movement over the complementizer, as in (6), is not the only environment that disallows an overt form of C. In-situ questions such as (8) also disallow the overt complementizer bahwa, even without overt movement.

The pattern in (3-4) is interesting because a wh phrase that remains in situ places constraints on a higher complementizer. In addition, whereas the two overt complementizers bahwa and kalau usually pattern together in various syntactic contexts, wh-in situ questions appear to be an exception because bahwa and kalau deviate in their distribution, a pattern that has not previously been observed. Kalau has been omitted from previous analyses of complementizers in Indonesian, or mentioned only as an informal form of C. By treating kalau on par with bahwa in this chapter, the novel pattern in (3-4) is shown to be a consequence of the form kalau, which also occurs as a conditional morpheme. This chapter addresses both obligatory realizations of C as in (6), as well as optional realizations of C as in (5). I treat bahwa, kalau, yang and the null form as belonging to the category C whose realization is determined at various points in a derivation, rather than by one syntactic or morphological process. The surface realization of C is first determined derivationally, that is, by the synactic and semantic requirements of structure building including A-bar movement and formation of questions; post-syntax, realization of C is also subject to variable operations that apply after insertion of morphophonological forms. The two extra-syntactic mechanisms that give rise to variable 8

surface realization of C are variable deletion, and pragmatic selection between formal and informal vocabulary items. This approach relies on both features in the syntax as well as extra-syntactic processes to derive the obligatory and optional alternations seen in (1-4). More broadly, I demonstrate that an understanding of both internal (grammatical) and external (extra-grammatical) factors is necessary to account for the distribution of forms that alternate in a single surface position. 2.1.2. Background: Complementizer-trace effects in other languages Indonesian is not unique in having multiple forms of C, nor in allowing optional realization of C. The Indonesian complementizer system shares a number of properties already attested in other languages. In this section I discuss similarities between the Indonesian pattern and other complementizer systems. Many languages have optional complementizers for introducing embedded clauses. For example, the Swedish complementizer att is optional in (9). In cases of subject extraction however, it must be null (10). This contrasts with object extraction, where the complementizer retains its optional realization (11).1

(9)

Jag tycker (att) studenterna borde komma i tid. I think that students.Def should come in time. ‘I think that the students should come on time.’

(10)

skulle komma i tid? Vem tror du (*att) time who believe you that should come in ‘Who do you believe should come on time?’

(11)

Vad tror du (att) John k¨opte ? what think you that John bought ‘What do you think that John bought?’

The same pattern is also well-known in English. The English complementizer that can be null, except in case of subject extraction or relativization:

(12) 1

the guy (that) you claim (that) Carlos hired

Thanks to Kajsa Dj¨arv for these examples.

9

yesterday

(13)

the guy (that) you claim (*that)

hired Bill yesterday

This pattern is generally known as the Comp(lementizer)-trace effect, which has been observed in a number of languages and has been much discussed (see e.g. Perlmutter 1968, 1971; Chomsky and Lasnik 1977; Bresnan 1977; Rizzi 1982; Pesetsky 1982; Zaenen 1983; Lasnik and Saito 1984; Culicover 1993; Pesetsky and Torrego 2000; Ishii 2004; among others.) Comp-trace effects are observed both in languages that allow complementizers to be optionally null (like Swedish and English), as well as languages in which the complementizer must be pronounced (such as French). However, the Indonesian data exhibit a pattern that is distinct from Comp-trace effects. One difference is that in Comp-trace effects, the C that is local to extraction is affected, but not a higher C. Consider long-distance subject extraction in English:

(14)

Laura claims (that) Mary thinks (that) Bill will love the new film.

(15)

Who does Laura claim (that) Mary thinks (*that)

will love the new film?

In (15) the lower C is the first that is crossed by A-bar movement, and consequently must be null, while the higher C may be overt. This contrasts with Indonesian long distance extraction, in which multiple complementizers along the path of movement are affected:

In Indonesian, every C that is crossed by nominal A-bar movement must be null. Note that the extraction across multiple clause boundaries with active verbs in (16) is somewhat degraded in acceptability. However, there is a strong contrast with (17), in which extraction over any overt C is impossible. A second difference between Comp-trace effects and Indonesian C is that the alternations in Indonesian are not sensitive to a distinction between subjects and non-subjects. Comp-trace 10

effects surface in different ways cross-linguistically, but the range of effects shares the generalization that special morphology on C is required when the (subject) argument immediately to the right of the complementizer undergoes A-bar movement. Other arguments do not trigger the special morphology, which means that various approaches to explaining Comp-trace effects must explain why subjects, but not other arguments, require special marking on C. (A recent overview of analyses for Comp-trace effects is summarized in Pesetsky 2017.) Explanations for Comp-trace effects, then, will have something to say about subject extraction, but will not account for all the Indonesian facts, since null C is required with both subject and object extraction. Instead, in this chapter I discuss this particular alternation in Indonesian C as a type of wh-agreement. 2.1.3. Background: Wh-agreement in other languages Wh-agreement is a type of morphological marking that occurs as a reflex of A-bar movement (Chung 1982; Zaenen 1983; Georgopoulous 1985; Tuller 1986; Chung and Georgopoulos 1988; Haik 1990; Watanabe 1996).2 In a variety of languages, an A-bar dependency triggers special morphology, which can surface on complementizers, agreement morphology on V or special aspect marking. The appearance of the special morphology does not have any semantic content, and appears to only reflect syntactic movement. For example, McCloskey (2001, 2002) shows that Irish complementizers take a special form if an A-bar dependency crosses the clause boundary. Finite declarative clauses are introduced by the complementizer go (which is also marked for tense in 18). When there is A-bar movement that crosses the clause boundary, illustrated by the relative in (19), the complementizer must occur as one of the allomorphs of aL.3 A third complementizer, aN, is used when a resumptive pronoun occurs instead of a gap (20). 2

Or wh-movement in the sense of Chomsky 1977, 1995; I use the term A-bar movement to avoid confusion in the discussion of interrogative wh words and movement of wh phrases. 3 McCloskey notes that aL is not considered a complementizer in traditional Irish grammars, but rather is called a “direct relative particle.”

an ghirseach a ghoid na s´ıoga´ı the girl aL stole the fairies ‘the girl that the fairies stole away’

(20)

an ghirseach ar ghoid na s´ıoga´ı ´ı the girl aN stole the fairies her ‘the girl that the fairies stole away’ (McCloskey 2001:67)

The difference between aL and aN is the type of element that occurs in the embedded clause. In McCloskey’s analysis, the complementizer is realized as aL when it binds a trace that is left behind by A-bar movement. aL introduces every clause from which extraction has occurred, so that it occurs recursively in long distance extraction:

(21)

rud a gheall t´u a dh´eanf´a thing aL promised you aL do[COND - S 2] ‘something that you promised that you would do’ (McCloskey 2001:68)

In contrast, the complementizer aN binds a resumptive pronoun (´ı ‘her’ in 20). Interestingly, McCloskey argues that in cases of resumption, no movement has occurred; rather, the head of the relative is generated in its high surface position. This means that aN does not mark A-bar movement, but only the existence of an A-bar dependency. Another language that exhibits wh-agreement is Chamorro (Chung 1998; Reintges et al. 2006). Chamorro exhibits two types of wh-agreement: with special inflection on the verb, and also with different forms of C. The verbal type is illustrated below with the verb fa’gasi ‘wash.’

In (23)-(25), A-bar movement of the question word occurs with special morphology on the verb that indicates that the moved argument has nominative (23), objective (24) or oblique (25) Case. This type of wh-agreement is recursive, occurring on every verb along the path of movement. The second type of wh-agreement in Chamorro, which Chung calls “Operator-C agreement,” requires special forms of the complementizer. A special form of C marks both Case and the type of argument that has moved (wh phrase, relativized DP or focused element). As illustrated below, a moved whphrase occurs with the complementizer na (26), while a locative phrase that has undergone focus movement occurs with nai (27) and a relativized argument occurs with a¨ nai (28):

i p¨ali’ [na p¨ara u-saga] ]? Manggi i gima’ [¨anai ma-sangani where?.is the house CREL WH[obj2].AGR-tell the priest C FUT AGR-live ‘Where is the house where they told the priest that he should live?’

Unlike wh-agreement on Chamorro verbs, which is required on every verb along the path of movement, Operator-C agreement occurs only on the highest complementizer. In the long distance relative in (28), wh-agreement is marked on the highest complementizer, a¨ nai, while intermediate complementizer occurs as na, which is the form that occurs when there is no movement. In this chapter I show that like Irish and Chamorro, Indonesian exhibits wh-agreement in its complementizer system. I analyze bahwa, kalau, yang and null C as complementizers whose form 13

is determined (in part) by overt A-bar movement. The optionality among bahwa, kalau and null C is lost when a nominal is extracted across C, and obligatory forms of C occur instead. Wh-agreement has a number of properties that are shared cross-linguistically. Reintges, LeSourd and Chung (2006) characterize the “typological profile” of wh-agreement as follows: (i) Wh-agreement occurs in constructions typically derived by wh-movement, that is, constituent questions, focus constructions and relatives. This is true of the Indonesian pattern, which occurs in relatives, clefted constructions and moved-wh questions. (ii) Morphological wh-agreement surfaces on V and C/T. This is also observed in Indonesian; see further discussion of Zaenen’s generalization below. (iii) The morphology of wh-agreement is not sensitive to DP-internal features (i.e. person, number, gender), even in languages that have a rich agreement system for phi features. (iv) Wh-agreement can register other features of the moved argument, such as Case, grammatical function or category (as already seen in Chamorro). (v) Wh-agreement comes in two “flavors”: “Either (1) the agreement is recursive, in the sense that it surfaces in every designated head on the path of wh-movement; or else (2) the agreement is nonrecursive, meaning that it surfaces only on the highest designated head on the path of wh-movement. As far as we know, no other patterns are attested.” (Reintges, LeSourd and Chung 2006:167) Indonesian contributes a new perspective on the nature of wh-agreement, because generalizations (ii) and (v) do not cover the full range of Indonesian data. I show that the morphology of Indonesian wh-agreement does not fall into either of two patterns described in (v). In long-distance A-bar movement, all complementizers crossed by movement must show wh-agreement, but the highest C occurs in a different form from intermediate C (discussed in Section 2.3.6). Indonesian A-bar movement therefore constitutes a third “flavor” of wh-agreement. Regarding point (ii), several authors have noted that morphological wh-agreement appears 14

to occur in only two domains. Zaenen argues that morphological wh-agreement is only marked on complementizers and verbs (Zaenen 1983; Watanabe 1996). This generalization finds some support in Indonesian: Saddy (1991) first noted that wh-movement is not only marked in the complementizer system, but also on active verbs (see Chapter 3.) However, Indonesian also marks wh-agreement within the DP, in cases of possessor sub-extraction (see Chapter 4). This extends the possible range of wh-agreement to nominal morphology. Furthermore, the pattern exhibited by Indonesian whagreement suggests that Zaenen’s generalization is better framed with reference to syntactic phases. This chapter, then, is the first of three part of a three-part investigation into optional morphemes that also participate in wh-agreement. In this chapter I focus on complementizers; Chapter 3 discusses wh-agreement on verbs; Chapter 4 discusses wh-agreement within the DP. However, wh-agreement is not the only factor that determines the distribution of complementizers in Indonesian; I show that questions also constrain possible forms of the complementizer. I show that this is a mechanism separate from wh-agreement. 2.1.4. Outline of chapter The organization of this chapter is as follows. Section 2.2 shows that the declarative complementizers bahwa and kalau may introduce embedded declarative clauses in Indonesian, but that they are optional. Section 2.3 shows that in certain syntactic contexts, this optionality is lost, i.e. in cases of A-bar movement and in question formation. Section 2.4 presents an analysis that derives the morphological forms of the complementizer. Section 2.5 concludes.

2.2. Embedded declarative clauses 2.2.1. Declarative complement clauses (finite) I begin with finite declarative sentences that do not involve overt A-bar movement. Embedded declarative clauses can be introduced by the formal complementizer bahwa (which is used in standardized, written Indonesian) or the informal complementizer kalau, which is more common in spoken Indonesian.

15

Polite/formal Indonesian and familiar/informal Indonesian are differentiated in a number of ways, most notably in the choice of personal pronouns, but many lexical items are not specified for a particular register. However, the complementizer bahwa is clearly associated with formal, standard Indonesian while kalau is associated with informal bahasa sehari-hari ‘everyday language.’ Kushartanti (2014), citing work on Standard Indonesian by Kridalaksana (1975), identifies the use of bahwa as an indicator of children’s acquisition of formal Indonesian.4 This means that when the complementizer kalau appears in written Indonesian, it is judged by consultants to be incorrect, or at least non-standard. (When the complementizer kalau does appear in written sources, it is often spelled kalo). The examples given throughout this chapter that occur with kalau should be understood as illustrations of colloquial, spoken Indonesian. Examples with bahwa are possible in both writing and speech. Throughout much of this discussion, I show that bahwa and kalau can occur in the same position. Internal grammatical factors that affect one of these forms will affect the other as well, and both forms are disallowed in the same contexts. The one exception is wh-in situ questions, where bahwa is disallowed but kalau is possible (see Section 2.3.7). For now, I set aside this exceptional case, and treat the two forms as having the same syntactic distribution as complementizers.5 Since internal factors do not differentiate bahwa from kalau, the difference between the two forms is a pragmatic one, i.e. attributed to style and situational formality. Bahwa is more common in formal or careful speech (as well as formal writing), while kalau is prescriptively avoided in written Indonesian but occurs in informal speech. In addition, bahwa and kalau may be optionally absent, which I refer to as a null complementizer. Null C is possible in either formal or informal speech, and does not appear to be considered formal or informal. The result is in an optional three-way alternation in C: 4

However, the complementizer kalau is not discussed in this work. The form kalau also occurs as the conditional morpheme. As a non-conditional complementizer, it is bleached of conditional semantics. 5

Here, the alternation among bahwa, kalau and null C is optional in the sense that all three realizations are possible in the same position. Below, I show that no semantic differences arise from the choice of one form over another; truth-conditions, presuppositions and entailments are not affected. The three-way optionality is possible with verbs from a range of semantic classes. Verbs of cognition such as tahu ‘know’ and berpikir ‘think’ are illustrated in (29-30) above. The same alternation is possible for verbs of communication, such as melapor ‘report’ and mengaku ‘confess,’ as well as verbs of response such as menolak ‘deny.’ (Note that for all examples from written sources, these were checked with consultants for the availability of different complementizers.)

(32-33) are from written texts originally occurring with the formal complementizer bahwa. In 17

prescriptive written language, the complementizer kalau is avoided, but these sentences are accepted with kalau or null C when spoken. Clauses embedded under factives also allow the three surface realizations of the complementizer: (34)

These examples show that the presupposition required by factive verbs is not affected by the form of C that it embeds. I conclude that the realization of C is not affected by the semantic class of verb. Besides active verbs, other constructions that embed declarative clauses allow optionality among bahwa, kalau and null C. Passive verbs behave as their active counterparts do: (37)

Finally, examples (31, 36, 38) show that negation does not affect the embedded complementizer. In all cases, the optional alternation among bahwa, kalau and null C remains. 2.2.2. Sentence-initial C Declarative root clauses must be introduced by null C:

In general, clauses cannot be extracted or clefted as in (44). This falls under the generalization that in Indonesian, only DPs may be extracted or clefted. 6 My consultants, who are primarily from East Java, did not accept sentential subjects in either standard or colloquial Indonesian. Sentences such as (43) were checked with speakers of Jakartan Indonesian, and found grammatical.

19

2.3. Loss of optionality: A-bar movement and questions The alternation among bahwa, kalau and null C is not completely free. We have already seen that in root clauses (sentence-initial position), C must be null. Two further environments place constraints on the realization of C, and disallow the optionality that is usually observed in embedded declaratives. The two environments are: (1) nominal A-bar movement over C, which results in an obligatory form of C; and (2) wh in situ questions, which require null C even though there is no overt movement of the wh phrase over C. I begin with background discussion that introduces Indonesian A-bar movement (Section 2.3.1) and strategies for question formation (Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5). I then show that A-bar movement results in wh-agreement on C (Section 2.3.6) and that interrogative clauses also affect the form of C (Section 2.3.7). 2.3.1. Properties of A-bar movement in Indonesian A-bar movement is a well-studied topic in Indonesian (and its regional varieties, as well as in Malay). In this section I summarize patterns that have previously been discussed in Aldridge 2008; Arka and Manning 2008; Chung 1976; Cole and Hermon 1998, 2005; Cole et al. 2008b; Fortin 2006, 2009; Sato 2008b, 2012; Soh 1998; Voskuil 2000; Yanti 2010. Indonesian exhibits properties that are typical of A-bar movement cross-liguistically, including leftward displacement accompanied by a gap; long distance dependencies; sensitivity to syntactic islands; and crossover effects. A nominal that has undergone A-bar movement occurs at the left edge of the clause and leaves a gap. This is illustrated below with both constituent wh questions and relative clauses.

While A-bar extraction over multiple clause boundaries is possible, it rarely occurs in natural speech. While extraction out of one embedded clause is unexceptional, extraction over multiple active verbs is usually judged less than natural, though not impossible. Speakers prefer alternate strategies for long distance extraction. For instance, long distance extraction seems more likely to be accepted if only one clause boundary is crossed; if the matrix subject is a 1 or 2 personal pronoun; or if the matrix verb is a high-frequency verb such as tahu ‘know’ or bilang ‘say’ (informal). 21

Where examples of long distance extraction are given (especialy to show relevant morphology on complementizers and/or verbs), my consultants have accepted them as possible, but less preferred than alternate constructions.7 The displacement of nominals is sensitive to syntactic islands, from which movement is not possible. Complex NPs and relatives are islands for movement:

Many of the long-distance extraction data presented in Saddy 1991 are impossible for my consultants, for the reasons mentioned here. I have attempted to replace these with alternate examples accepted by my consultants.

In addition to exhibiting properties expected of general A-bar movement, two additional properties are specific to Indonesian (and similar languages of the area). First, nominal A-bar movement over an active verb has consequences for verbal morphology. The basic generalization is that movement from the complement of a transitive active verb (i.e. a verb that can take the prefix meN-) is only possible when the verb does not bear the voice prefix:

The movement of the object over the active verb requires a “bare” verb, i.e. without voice morphology. This pattern has already been much discussed in the literature, and is summarized as follows:

(75)

Cole and Hermon’s Generalization The obligatory omission of meng- with verbs that would otherwise permit meng- indicates the movement of an NP argument over the meng- + verb. (Sato 2008b, citing Cole and Hermon 1998:231)

This formulation does not specify whether both A and A-bar movement are implicated; I take the generalization to apply only to A-bar movement.8 The second language-specific property of A-bar movement is that extraction always results in a relative or pseudo-cleft structure; this is discussed in the next section. 2.3.2. Pseudo-cleft structure In this section I look at the structure of pseudo-clefts in Indonesian. All cases of nominal extraction (including constituent wh questions, relatives and declarative clauses with a clefted nominal) result in a pseudo-cleft structure.9 Relatives and pseudo-clefts employ the same surface structure; for 8 Other authors, however, believe that A movement also requires omission of the prefix meN-. I discuss this further in Chapter 3, where I show that it is other factors that require the bare verb, not A movement. 9 Pseudo-clefts have a clefted interpretation, i.e. “It is X that...” but are not formed with an overt expletive and copula.

24

example, (72) can be interpreted as ‘the secret I’m keeping’ or ‘it is a secret that I’m keeping’ (even though the distinction is usually made clear by context and intonation). I illustrate pseudo-cleft structure in Indonesian using the object question in (76):

(76)

Apa [yang Tina suka] ? what C.Foc Tina like ‘What does Tina like?’

The head of the relative/pseudo-cleft occurs at the left periphery, separated from the rest of the clause by the morpheme yang. The position of the head nominal is clearly an A-bar position, higher than the grammatical subject of the clause. Clefted arguments may either be definite, or indefinite as in (72) and (73), whereas subjects must be definite or specific in Indonesian. Previous authors have concluded that the nominal head of the cleft is a predicate that has raised to a focused position (see Kader 1976; Cole and Hermon 1998; Cole et al. 1999; Cole et al. 2005; Kroeger 2009 for Malay and Indonesian; also see Paul 2001; Pearson 2001; Massam 2003 for discussion on pseudo-clefts in other Austronesian languages). First, a null Operator undergoes relative-internal movement to form a headless relative:

(77)

Relative-internal Operator movement

25

CP C0

DP OP

IP

C [EPP-D]

DP

[declartv]

Tina

yang

I0 I

VoiceP VoiceP0

DP Tina

VoiceP0

DP OP

vP

Voice [EPP-D] ∅-

v

VP V

DP

suka

OP

‘like’

Relative-internal movement of OP is motivated by a D-feature on phase heads C and Voice, which targets only DPs for movement. This feature on a phase head forces movement of the nominal to its specifier, so I have labeled the feature [EPP-D]. This headless relative is interpreted as ‘(the thing/the one) that Tina likes.’ This headless relative, yang Tina suka, is the subject of the copular clause in (78), and yang is embedded in the copular clause (cf. Cole et al. 1999). I assume the headless relative is an IP embedded under a DP projection when it is generated as the subject, since the headless relative is always interpreted as a definite; furthermore, sentential subjects are not possible for my consultants. The headless relative subject begins as the external argument of the predicate in (78), and is raised to subject position in SpecIP.

(78)

Matrix copular clause of pseudo-cleft

26

CPCopular C0

DP apa ‘what’

IP

C [Focus] [Q] ∅

I0

DP OP yang Tina suka OP

I

PredP

‘Tina likes’ Pred0

DP

Pred ∅

DP apa ‘what’

The nominal that surfaces as the head of the relative or cleft is generated low, as predicate of the copular clause. This nominal is raised to a focused position at the left edge of the clause, which derives the word order in (76). The structure in (78) shows the predicate nominal in both positions (base position and raised to the left periphery). Note that in a cleft structure, matrix C is null, while yang realizes the embedded C in the subject. This analysis is similar to that proposed by Cole, Hermon and Tjung (2005), who also argue that (Standard) Indonesian clefts have the form [NP NP] rather than [NP VP]. This structure in (78) is supported by several pieces of evidence in Indonesian. First, the head of the cleft can occur both in sentence-initial position and in post-verbal position, illustrated in the following examples:

In (80) and (82) the clefted nominal may occur low, which is its base position as predicate of the matrix copular clause. Another argument for the predicative status of the clefted nominal comes from the distribution of the question particle -kah that focuses an element in polar questions. This particle may occur within the predicate, but cannot occur on subjects (this is true for both Malay and Indonesian; see Kader 1976; Cole et al. 1999; Musgrave 2001; Paul 2001). -Kah occurs on verbal predicates (83) as well as copular predicates (85). In both cases, -kah may not attach to the subject of the clause.

The head of the cleft, then, patterns as a predicate that can be focused with -kah. The headless relative cannot take -kah, patterning like a subject. A similar pattern also holds for the emphatic particle -lah, which occurs within predicates but not subjects (Sneddon 1996; Kroeger 2009). In the declarative sentences below, -lah can occur on the clefted nominal but not on the relative:

Negation also supports the status of the clefted nominal as a predicate. Verbal and adjectival predicates are negated by the morpheme tidak, while nominal predicates are negated by bukan (Sneddon 1996; Kroeger 2009; Sneddon et al. 2012).10

I hereafter assume the structure in (78) for clefts, including all questions in which the wh phrase has undergone movement. I later return to this structure in Section 2.3.7 to derive moved-wh questions. I also assume that null operator movement is the strategy used for all cases of extraction, including wh constituent questions, relatives and pseudo-clefts. In other words, the overt nominal that occurs as head of the relative/cleft does not undergo A-bar movement. It is a null operator that undergoes cyclic A-bar movement within a relative clause, rather than the DP that is pronounced. Other authors have also treated null operator movement as the strategy for wh movement or A-bar movement in various languages, assuming that surface displacement obtains through movement of the operator, e.g. Chung 1998; Reintges et al. 2006; McCloskey 2001, 2002. All cases of nominal Abar movement or wh movement, including relative formation, are cases of null operator movement. For ease of exposition, where the distinction does not bear upon the discussion, I sometimes refer to the syntactic operation simply as nominal movement or A-bar extraction, abstracting away from the movement of the operator and the interpretation of the overt nominal in the place of the moved operator.

30

2.3.3. Nominal movement vs. non-nominal movement The discussion that follows is specifically focused on nominal A-bar movement. Indonesian and related languages differentiate nominal extraction from the movement of other categories, as noted by many authors (see e.g. Cole and Hermon 1998; Sato 2008a,b). For example, PPs and other adjuncts may occur in various positions, but cannot occur with the morpheme yang, which I take to be required in all cases of A-bar movement:

(98)

Piala Dunia akan di-ada-kan pada tahun 2018 di Rusia. cup world will PV-exist-Appl at year 2018 at Russia ‘The World Cup will be held in 2018 in Russia.’

(99)

Pada tahun 2018 (*yang) Piala Dunia akan di-ada-kan di Rusia. at year 2018 C.Foc cup world will PV-exist-Appl at Russia ‘In 2018 the World Cup will be held in Russia.’

Unlike DP movement, when non-nominal constituents cross over the verb, the movement does not affect active verbal morphology, e.g. in (101) the verb retains its active prefix (meN-). Wh phrases also show a distinction between nominals and non-nominals. Adverbial and PP wh phrases occurring in a sentence-initial position can occur with the active verbal prefix as in (102) and (103):

The discussion therefore focuses on nominal movement throughout this chapter, excluding the 31

movement of other types of constituents such as PPs and adverbs. 2.3.4. Three strategies for constituent wh questions Wh constituent questions may be formed in one of three ways in Indonesian: in situ wh questions, sentence-initial wh questions and partial wh questions (partial wh movement) (Saddy 1991; see also Cole and Hermon 1998). In Indonesian, wh-in situ can be used as a clarification question, but wh-in situ constructions are unremarkable as matrix questions and occur very frequently. Note however that when subjects are questioned, wh in situ is generally not possible. This is due to a requirement that grammatical subjects in Indonesian be definite or specific, which rules out wh phrases as subjects (Sneddon et al. 2012).11,12 Wh-in situ questions and sentence-initial wh questions are illustrated below, with the wh originating in different argument positions, including grammatical subject, object, ditransitive object and possessor. A sentence-initial wh phrase occurs in a scopal position, i.e. the matrix clause is interpreted as an interrogative. The interpretation of a wh-in situ question is equivalent to a sentence-initial wh question: the sentence has interrogative force and the expected response is that of a constituent wh question.

There appears to be variation in this requirement in some varieties of Indonesian, e.g. see Sneddon 2006. For some speakers, ‘who’ subject questions are possible just in case the questioned subject is among the addressees, i.e. ‘who among you..?’ I leave this issue aside. 12 This is true of the grammatical (surface) subject, as well as the logical subject that remains in its thematic position in Object voice clauses. See Guilfoyle et al. 1992; Cole et al. 2008b.

Wh-in situ questions are also possible for questioning a prepositional object or adjunct clause:

(113)

Wh-in situ (prepositional object)

13

Note that when the direct object is questioned in a moved-wh sentence, the indirect object must occur in a PP. Some authors (e.g. Sato 2012, see examples 18b, 19b) report that it is possible to extract the direct object over an indirect object occurring without a preposition. This is not possible for any of the speakers that I consulted.

However, A-bar movement out of PPs and adjuncts is disallowed (as discussed in Section 2.3.1), so sentence-initial wh questions and partial wh questions cannot be formed from these in situ questions. Moved wh questions have a slightly different interpretation than the wh-in situ questions, since the moved wh results in a pseudo-cleft. The information in the relative structure is presupposed, while the head of the cleft is new information (see discussion of pseudo-clefts in 2.3.1). The wh-in situ question ‘What food did Billy buy?’ (105) does not carry a presupposition, while in the clefted question in (106), the information within the relatie clause is presupposed as old information, ‘Tono knows that Billy bought x.’ In partial wh movement, the wh word moves to an initial position within an embedded clause. As originally observed by Saddy (1991), partial wh questions such as (117) and (118) have two interpretations: a matrix question reading, and an embedded reading with an indirect question. In embedded readings, the matrix clause does not have interrogative force.

As previously discussed, when the wh word is moved it is followed by the relative morpheme yang. Partial wh movement shows that yang marks the surface position of the clefted nominal, which means that yang does not always mark question scope: partial wh questions can be interpreted as matrix questions, in which the wh phrase is interpreted as having widest scope over the sentence. 2.3.5. Strategies for forming polar questions Polar questions may be formed in several ways. Question intonation may be used with a declarative sentence to form a yes-no question as in (120) and (121).

Another strategy for forming a polar question is to focus the questioned element, which occurs in a sentence-initial position, cliticized with the question particle -kah (Fortin 2007). -Kah may attach to different categories:

The clitic -kah can also attach to nominal arguments. Unlike other categories cliticized with -kah, nominal constituents are always followed by yang, consistent with previous examples of A-bar movement that we have already seen.

(128)

Pohon ini-kah yang akan di-tebang? tree this-Q.Foc C.Foc will PV-cut.down ‘Is it this tree that will be cut down?’ (modified from Fortin 2007:55)

Note that when the clitic -kah occurs on a focused element, it may co-occur with the question word apa(-kah), as in (129). However, apakah is compatible with polar questions only, and cannot be combined with in situ constituent wh questions:

In Section 2.3.7, I return to the fact that kalau can introduce embedded polar questions as in (133), as embedded or indirect questions are compatible with kalau, but not bahwa. 2.3.6. Complementizers and A-bar movement Thus far we have seen examples illustrating nominal A-bar movement, and different strategies for question formation in Indonesian. A-bar movement and wh questions each place different constraints on the realization of complementizers. Since A-bar movement subsumes some types of questions (i.e. questions in which a nominal wh phrase undergoes A-bar movement to an intermediate or sentence-initial position), I begin by looking at the effects of general A-bar movement on complementizers. In Section 2.3.7, I continue on to a discussion of complementizers in questions.

37

Saddy (1991) first showed that long distance nominal movement in Indonesian affected not only verbal morphology, but also complementizers. Saddy’s generalizations were also taken up by Cole and Hermon (1998) in research on wh questions in the related variety, Malay; other authors who discuss Indonesian complementizers include Sneddon (1996); Sato (2008b); Fortin (2009); Yanti (2010); Sneddon et al. (2012). Constructions that involve nominal A-bar movement include wh constituent questions as well as the formation of relatives and clefts. Recall that embedded clauses without nominal movement allow for variable realization of the complementizer as bahwa, kalau or null C. It has long been observed for Indonesian that the overt complementizer bahwa is ruled out whenever long distance A-bar movement crosses C, and the complementizer must be null instead. I argue below that whenever A-bar movement occurs, two obligatory forms of C are required: yang is the form required for C whenever the moved nominal (i.e. a null Operator) lands in its specifier, whereas intermediate CPs, through which cyclic movement has passed, result in realization of null C. As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, when a nominal undergoes A-bar movement over an active verb (i.e. a verb which bears the prefix meN-), the verb must occur without the active prefix. I take this to be an instance of wh-agreement, and I briefly review this pattern since I use verbal wh-agreement to diagnose A-bar movement throughout this discussion. In (134), without A-bar movement, the active prefix meN- may occur on both matrix and embedded verbs.14 In (135) apa has moved to an intermediate position, at the left edge of the embedded clause, and has only crossed the embedded verb. The embedded verb must be bare, while the matrix verb may bear the active prefix meN-:15,16

14 Here I do not address the optional realization of the active prefix in examples such as (134); see Chapter 3 for discussion of optional Voice morphology. 15 The verb kira is closer in meaning to English guess. Declarative counterparts to these clauses often occur with pikir, ‘think’ instead of kira. 16 The verb mengira is considered formal with the active prefix. My consultants preferred the form kira for these examples, noting that mengira is grammatical but pragmatically unusual in spontaneous speech. I use mengira to illustrate the interaction of A-bar movement and the active voice prefix.

When apa has crossed both verbs in (136), both verbs must be bare, without meN-. (Also see similar examples in 70-74.) This is not specific to wh elements or questions, but a general property of nominal A-bar movement. Similar effects are seen in relatives and clefts:

Extraction of the embedded object in (137) requires that both verbs be bare, but extraction from embedded subject position (138) allows the embedded verb to bear the active prefix meN-, since A-bar movement of wanita ‘woman’ has not crossed this verb. Nominal A-bar movement has similar consequences for the realization of complementizers, a parallel pattern first noted by Saddy (1991). In (139) the alternation among bahwa, kalau and null C is optional. When the embedded object undergoes A-bar movement in (140) however, the null complementizer is required:17

Note that beginning with example (139), I do not detail alternations in verbal prefixes.

39

A similar pattern holds for A-bar movement from subject position. If a nominal crosses CP, an overt form of the complementizer is ruled out. In (142), A-bar movement of the matrix subject does not affect the lower complementizer. On the other hand, movement of the embedded subject over the complementizer in (143) requires null C.

I have previously noted that yang must appear immediately following a nominal that has undergone A-bar movement. Yang has frequently been identified as a relative morpheme or focus marker (Sneddon 1996; Saddy 1991; Arka 2000; Sneddon et al. 2012). The issue of focus is relevant since the head of a relative or pseudo-cleft is always focused, and yang must occur in these constructions. However, I argue that yang does not mark focus on the nominal that it follows; rather, yang is part of the complementizer system in Indonesian, on par with bahwa and kalau (this is also briefly suggested in Fortin 2009). First, recall that yang does not form a constituent with the nominal that it follows. Rather, it must precede the headless relative clause (refer to the tree structures in 77, 78), even when the clefted nominal remains in a low position (see example 82). The linear position of yang is that expected of a complementizer, at the left periphery of a clause (matrix or embedded). Second, yang is always in complementary distribution with other complementizers (bahwa/kalau/null C):18 18

Saddy (1991) claims that bahwa and yang can co-occur as in (i). (i) Bill tahu bahwa siapa yang Tom cintai Bill knows that who Tom loves (Saddy 1991, ex. 12) I have not found any consultants that accept this construction. However, assuming that speakers of some variety of Indonesian do allow bahwa and yang to co-occur as in (i), this pattern is amenable to a split-CP analysis (cf. Rizzi 1997 et seq.). I assume that bahwa always appears to the left of the moved nominal, and yang to its right. This suggests that bahwa occurs in ForceP and yang in FocusP: [F orceP bahwa [F ocusP siapa [IP [yang Tom cintai] I ... ] ] ] ]

Furthermore, yang precedes the position of in-situ grammatical subjects (see 143, and other examples throughout), which occupy the specifier of IP (Chung 1976; Guilfoyle et al. 1992; Cole and Hermon 2005; Cole et al. 2008b). Assuming that A-bar moved nominals land in a specifier of CP, it is reasonable to conclude that yang is the head C.19 Interestingly, in cases of long distance movement such as (143), yang cannot occur recursively, but only surfaces once after the position of the moved nominal. Consequently, yang always marks the highest CP affected by overt A-bar movement; yang does not necessarily mark scopal position (see Section 2.3.7 for further discussion of covert movement of wh phrases and their scopal interaction with quantifiers.) We have already seen that in Chamorro, wh-agreement is marked only on the highest C crossed by A-bar movement (see discussion surrounding example 28). Indonesian also marks the highest C with yang, but I argue that (141-143) instantiate a pattern that is distinct from Chamorro, because intermediate C also shows morphological wh-agreement. Note that in (141), the complementizers that occur without movement are bahwa, kalau or null C. In contrast, when this complementizer is an intermediate clause boundary crossed by long-distance movement in (141), it must be realized as null C. I take both yang in the matrix clause and obligatory null C in the embedded clause to be morphological wh-agreement. This means that wh-agreement is marked on all C that are in the path of movement in Indonesian, but the highest C is morphologically distinct from intermediate C. If only one C is crossed by A-bar movement, it counts as highest C, and is 19

Malay and Indonesian clearly deviate with respect to the distribution of yang. In Malay, yang can occur in the same position as bahawa, the Malay variant of bahwa. (ii) is grammatical in Malay, but not in Indonesian: (ii) Ali memberitahu saya tadi yang Fatimah sakit semalam. Ali told me before that Fatimah sick yesterday ‘Ali told me earlier that Fatimah was sick yesterday.’ (Cole et al. 1999:14) Cole et al. (1999) find that in Malay, “either the complementizer bahawa or the complementizer yang can be used to introduce complement clauses, but only yang can be used to introduce relative clauses.” (1999:14) This is an interesting point of cross-linguistic variation that I leave for further study.

My presentation of the data differs from that in Amaechi and Georgi 2017; any errors are my own. Thank you to Doreen Georgi for corresponding with me about the Igbo pattern.

42

The embedded clauses in (149) and (150) are marked differently. In case of long distance object extraction, a special form of the complementizer introducing the embedded clause is not required (compare 148 and 149). However, in long-distance subject extraction (150), the complementizer must be null. Focus marking on the highest C in Igbo parallels the Indonesian complementizer system. Amaechi and Georgi (2017) analyze k`a as the realization of C when a moved argument lands in its specifier. If this analysis for Igbo is correct, then Igbo appears to mark extraction on the highest C only. However, I suggest that Igbo complementizers can be understood as displaying three different forms in case of long distance extraction of a subject. Amaechi and Georgi show that extraction of subjects, but not objects, require that the lowest complementizer be null. This results in a Comptrace effect, in which there is an asymmetry in marking subject extraction vs. object extraction. In cases of long distance subject extraction, then, three different forms of C are required: ` e k`a Helen si n`a Uch` ` a n’-´ah´ıa´ ´ e ch`er`e (*n`a) h`ur`u Ad´ (151) Ony´ saw Ada P-market who FOC Helen say that Uche think that ‘Who did Helen say that Uche thinks saw Ada at the market?’ (Amaechi and Georgi, p.c.)

If a subject is extracted from the most deeply embedded clause, the Comp-trace effect requires a null form; an intermediate C is realized as the default complementizer n´a; and the highest C is realized as k´a. I have suggested that the ‘flavor’ of Indonesian wh-agreement on C is not predicted by Reintges et al. 2006. Additionally, Igbo displays another possible pattern of wh-agreement, in which Comp-trace effects interact with wh-agreement to yield three different forms of C in (151). Movement over the verb and C are taken to be movement through the specifiers of VoiceP and CP, respectively. The fact that A-bar movement has morphological consequences for the verb and the complementizer in Indonesian provides support for long distance movement that occurs in shorter steps, via successive-cyclic movement through the edge of phases (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Phase-cyclic analyses of nominal extraction have been implemented for Indonesian and various related languages (e.g. see Aldridge 2008; Cole et al. 2008b; Sato 2008b; Legate 2014; Yanti 2010). I take up a discussion of syntactic phases again in Chapter 4, where I argue that D is also a phase 43

head in Indonesian. 2.3.7. Complementizers in questions A-bar movement is not the only environment in which C cannot be optionally realized as bahwa or kalau. In this section I show that all constituent questions are incompatible with the overt complementizer bahwa, including in situ questions with no overt movement over C. As already discussed, A-bar movement of a wh word over a complementizer requires null C; the overt forms bahwa and kalau cannot occur. This is illustrated with the questioned subjects below. (153) shows partial wh movement, while (154-155) show the wh subject in sentence-initial position.

Note especially that in (155), the wh phrase has been extracted from the matrix clause, but this movement has not crossed the embedded complementizer, which is optionally realized as bahwa/kalau/∅. A similar pattern holds for questioned objects in partial wh movement (157) and sentence-initial wh (158).

Thus far these facts are consistent with the previous pattern that I have shown for A-bar movement. When a wh phrase is A-bar moved, morphological wh-agreement is marked on the highest C by the form yang, while intermediate C must be null. Any complementizer that is not crossed by A-bar movement retains its optional realization as bahwa/kalau/ null C. Unexpectedly however, wh-in situ questions place an additional constraint on the complementizer bahwa, even if no movement has crossed C. (Recall that wh phrases generally may not occur in subject position, but must be extracted. Consequently, I use non-subject questions to illustrate wh in situ.)

(160) illustrates two points that are important to the discussion here. First, wh-in situ object questions such as (160) do not involve any overt movement over C, yet they place a requirement on the form of a complementizer in a position higher than the wh phrase. Second, this is the only context we have seen in which bahwa is ruled out, while kalau is possible. Thus far their syntactic distribution has been identical, with both forms possible in the same position or disallowed in the same 45

position. In addition to object questions such as (160), other types of wh-in situ also disallow bahwa in a higher position. If a wh phrase remains in situ within an adjunct clause (161) or PP (162), these are also incompatible with bahwa:

These examples show that in questions, bahwa cannot introduce any clause that contains a wh phrase, even if the wh word occurs in an adjunct.21 Kalau, on the other hand, is compatible with wh-in situ in (160) and some speakers also accept kalau in (161-162). Other speakers are uncertain or noted that kalau was degraded in (161-162). Despite the varying judgments about kalau, I note that there is a strong contrast between bahwa and kalau in (161-162), and that all speakers reject bahwa in wh-in situ questions. We have already seen that adjunct clauses and PPs are islands for syntactic movement, so that overtly-moved wh questions cannot be extracted from them; wh-in situ questions contrast with moved-wh questions because wh in situ does not show island sensitivity in Indonesian.22 Additionally, (160) and (161) show a contrast between verbal morphology and complementizer morphology. The active verbs in the embedded clauses do not show wh-agreement (i.e. they retain the active prefix meN-), which indicates that no A-bar movement has occurred. Therefore, the obligatory null complementizer is yet unexplained. To my knowledge the unavailability of bahwa 21

Bahwa is possible however, with indirect interpretations of partial wh, as discussed below. These wh-words questions do not appear to require D-linking (Pesetsky 1987) in order to appear in situ; they can occur without prior discourse context, although this is clearer in simple wh-in situ questions (i.e. not embedded). Pesetsky notes that some wh-in situ questions that appear island-insensitive do exhibit Subjacency effects, citing observations in Choe 1984 and Nishigauchi 1984: for Japanese wh-in situ, the set of felicitous answers to wh-in situ questions correlates with islands. This distinction is not relevant for Indonesian. For example, felicitous answers to (162) include ‘Tono lives with Billy’ as well as ‘with Billy’ and ‘Billy.’ 22

46

with wh-in situ questions has not been discussed with regard to Indonesian or Malay.23 In the discussion that follows, I consider possible approaches to understanding how wh-in situ questions in Indonesian are derived without movement. Pesetsky (1987), Cheng and Rooryck (2000), Bayer (2006) and Cheng (2003, 2009) suggest that wh-in situ varies across languages, and that more than one mechanism for licensing and interpreting wh-in situ is available. I review three types of analyses in light of the Indonesian data, without claiming that all wh-in situ questions are derived in the same way. For Indonesian, I argue that the data do not support a derivation of wh-in situ questions through syntactic movement. Two other possible analyses - a covert movement approach, and an approach that does not involve any movement - are both compatible with the lack of wh-agreement on active verbs, but do not explain the contrast between verbal morphology and complementizer morphology. Based on independent evidence from scope and wh-indefinites, I pursue an analysis for Indonesian wh-in situ questions that does not involve any movement, overt or covert. I suggest that the reason why C must be null in wh-in situ questions has to do with the makeup of wh words, and the requirement that wh variables must be bound by a question Operator. I show that the complementizer bahwa blocks wh-variable binding. This operation is associated with the CP domain rather than the verbal domain, and places no restrictions on the morphology of C in questions. The first approach to wh-in situ questions appeals to a copy theory of movement (cf. Chomsky 1995), in which any position in a movement chain may be pronounced. If we assume that movement occurs in the syntax and proceeds in cyclic fashion through the edge of phases, then in Indonesian long distance questions the wh phrase could be pronounced in multiple positions along its path of movement: its base position (resulting in wh-in situ), intermediate positions (partial wh), or highest scopal position (sentence-initial wh). This type of analysis is pursued by Reintges et al. (2006) for Passamaquoddy and Coptic Eqyptian (following proposals in Groat and O’Neil 1996; Bobaljik 2002, and others). The evidence comes from morphological wh-agreement, which they take to mark A-bar movement in overt syntax before spellout to PF/LF. This movement is followed 23

Saddy (1991) gives several examples in which kalau optionally introduces an embedded clause with a wh phrase (see Saddy’s examples 37 and 39). These are impossible for my Indonesian consultants.

47

by later pronunciation of the lowest copy (at PF). Under this type of “apparent wh-in situ” analysis, A-bar movement of the wh-phrase obtains in the syntax, but can only be observed through wh-agreement on C. A variant of this approach is to maintain that the wh phrase remains in situ, while a silent element separates from it and undergoes movement (as suggested for Japanese in Watanabe 1992). The silent element is a question operator, or alternatively, only a wh-feature (cf. Aoun and Li 1993, Watanabe 2001) that moves to scopal position. For Indonesian, both of these approaches are challenged by the fact that verbs do not show wh-agreement as they do in all other cases of A-bar movement. Since pronunciation of copies occurs at PF, the choice of which copy to pronounce should have no effect on wh-agreement. A second approach is to assume that in wh-in situ questions, the wh element does not move in the syntax, but rather that there is covert movement for semantic computation at the level of Logical Form (LF). For example, Huang (1982) proposes that for Chinese wh-in situ questions, the whelement covertly moves to a scopal position at LF (generally undergoing wh movement as outlined in Chomsky 1977). The LF of wh-in situ questions, then, results in a structure that is the same as sentence-initial wh questions. If the null morphology on active verbs is a reflex of overt movement in syntax, then covert movement does not affect spellout of the prefix meN-. By the same logic however, the complementizer in (160) should not be prevented from being spelled out as bahwa, since only covert movement obtains at LF. Note that this is a problem whether covert movement at LF is assumed to be subject to island effects or immune to island effects. The deviation between complementizers and verbal morphology, which otherwise pattern together for wh-agreement in Indonesian, motivates an analysis that does not involve movement. I therefore pursue an approach in which the interpretation of wh-in situ questions requires neither covert movement at LF nor movement in the narrow syntax. Rather, wh-in situ questions derive their matrix question interpretation through binding by a silent Operator that is merged high in the structure.24 This question Operator was first proposed in Cole and Hermon 1998 for questions 24

Note that the question Operator is distinct from the Operator discussed in Section 2.3.2, which undergoes relativeinternal A-bar movement. The question Operator binds a wh-variable in its scope.

48

in Malay, which is closely related to Indonesian.25 Cole and Hermon propose that wh words are not uniformly generated across languages. Overt wh words such as apa ‘what’ and siapa ‘who’ minimally consist of a wh variable (represented as VAR). In languages like Chinese, the wh word is stored (or “lexicalized”) as VAR only, and only receives a question interpretation if it is bound by a separate question Operator (OP). In languages like English, the wh variable is lexicalized together with the question Operator (represented as OP+VAR). In this case, the wh variable and the Operator always undergo syntactic movement together so that the surface position of who, what, etc. always marks the scope of the question Operator. According to Cole and Hermon’s analysis, languages like Malay employ more than one option for wh words. The wh element and the Operator may be generated together (OP+VAR); they can also be generated separately in different syntactic positions (represented as OP...VAR). These two options are shown in Table 1. wh-word [OP+VAR]

type of question moved-wh questions

apa ‘what,’ siapa ‘who’ [OP...VAR]

wh-in situ questions

sensitive to islands; wh-agreement on verb does not obey islands; no wh-agreement on verb

apa ‘what,’ siapa ‘who’ Table 1: Cole and Hermon’s (1998) analysis of WH-words in Malay For moved-wh questions in Malay, Cole and Hermon propose that the language employs the wh word that contains both a variable and Operator (OP+VAR), and this wh-word moves to its surface position via syntactic movement. As in Indonesian, A-bar movement in Malay is blocked by islands, and also requires the bare verb form when an active verb is crossed by movement. In partial wh questions, the wh word (OP+VAR) moves to an intermediate position: if OP remains in this position, it yields an indirect (embedded) question reading; if OP undergoes covert movement to matrix CP, it yields a matrix question interpretation. (Note that this analysis does not account for the clefted nature of moved-wh questions; I return to this point shortly.) Under Cole and Hermon’s account, wh-in situ questions in Malay employ a separate variable 25 Cole and Hermon 1998 report that their data is from educated Malay speakers living in Singapore. Malay and Indonesian are widely considered to be different standardized varieties of the same language, although colloquial and regional varieties of Malay and Indonesian may differ in significant ways.

49

and question Operator, represented as (OP...VAR). Neither the question Operator nor the wh-word undergo movement. The wh-word (VAR) is generated in its surface position, and the silent OP is generated in matrix CP. Additional support for this idea comes from the fact that wh-words occur independently as variables (or wh-indefinites) in Malay and Indonesian. The examples below illustrate this briefly for apa and siapa, although other wh-words can also occur as wh variables (see Sneddon 1996; Cole and Hermon 1998; Sneddon et al. 2012). The following illustrate non-interrogative uses of the wh variables:

In these examples, the wh-word occurs in a reduplicated form (apa-apa, siapa-siapa) or with a particle (-pun, saja). In (163) and (164), the wh variable is a type of a negative polarity item. In (165168) the wh- variable is interpreted as a universal quantifier. Additionally, (166-167) are examples of free relatives formed by the wh-word occurring as a variable (cf. Bresnan and Grimshaw 1978; Caponigro 2003; among others). All these examples show that siapa and apa can occur as a noninterrogative element, i.e. a wh variable bound by a non-interrogative Operator. 50

Returning to the derivation of questions under Cole and Hermon’s analysis, the same whvariables discussed above occur as in situ wh elements:

In (169) the overt wh-word apa is only a wh-variable (VAR). The matrix question interpretation is derived from a silent question Operator (OP), which is merged in matrix CP, from which position it unselectively binds the wh variable in the embedded clause:

(170)

Wh-in situ question with unselective binding of apa CP C0

OPQ

IP

C

I0

DP Susan

I

... VP V

CP

tahu

C

‘know’

∅

IP I0

DP Tina

I

... VP V

VAR

suka

apa

‘like’ I adopt the general treatment of wh-in situ questions proposed by Cole and Hermon (1998) for Malay: the interpretation of wh-in situ questions is derived by unselective binding of a wh51

variable by a separately generated question Operator, as shown in (170). This analysis for wh-in situ questions does not require any movement, which is welcome for Indonesian since wh-in situ can occur inside islands, and since no wh-agreement is triggered on active verbs. I propose, however, that a single analysis can extend to all types of questions in Indonesian, not just wh-in situ. In other words, wh-in situ questions, partially-moved wh questions and sentenceinitial wh questions all contain a wh variable (VAR) and a question Operator (OP), which are merged separately in the syntax. The basic proposal is as follows: • Indonesian wh words are merged as a wh-variable (VAR) • A question Operator unselectively binds VAR, resulting in interrogative force • Matrix question readings of partial wh questions arise when question OP is merged in matrix CP: [ OPQ You know [what Tina likes]] • Indirect readings of partial wh questions arise when VAR is bound by a question OP in the embedded clause: ‘You know [OPQ what Tina likes].’ My proposal simplifies Cole and Hermon’s analysis by requiring only one type of stored wh-word (VAR), and one type of operation (binding by a question Operator) to derive the range of wh questions in Indonesian. Cole and Hermon’s analysis requires that two different sets of Malay wh words are stored in the speaker’s grammar: a word that fuses the question Operator and wh variable (OP+VAR) as well as an overt wh variable that is generated separately from the Operator (OP...VAR). Cole and Hermon also require two different mechanisms for deriving moved-wh questions: for sentence-initial wh questions, the wh word (OP+VAR) moves to its surface position; for (matrix readings of) partial wh movement, the wh word (OP+VAR) moves, followed by by covert movement of this wh word (OP+VAR) after spell-out. Under the new analysis, it is unnecessary to make this distinction between sentence-initial wh and partial wh questions in Indonesian. All wh-words in Indonesian are merged in the syntax simply as a wh-variable (VAR), whether in situ or moved. This variable is bound by the question Operator which is merged high in the structure This preserves = the identity of wh words, and simplifies the analysis of question syntax in Indonesian. 52

I re-examine the structure of moved-wh questions in light of this proposal. Recall that all moved-wh questions result in a pseudo-cleft, while wh-in situ questions are not clefts. For a movedwh question, a cleft structure begins as shown in (171), with the wh-phrase low in its base position: (171)

I have proposed that apa is a wh-variable that does not contain an interrogative element. To be interpreted as a matrix question, the wh-variable must be bound by a question Operator, which I have represented as OPQ in the specifier of matrix CP. Note that the wh-phrase apa may remain in this low position and occur after the headless relative: (172)

The indirect reading is derived directly from the structure shown in (174): the question Operator occurs in the embedded clause, so the matrix clause does not have interrogative force. A matrix interpretation can also derived from (174): if the question Operator occurs in matrix CP, rather than in the embedded clause, then it carries interrogative force into the matrix clause. In both cases, the Operator binds the wh-variable apa. Movement of the (overt) wh-word is strictly local within one CP under this analysis. Longdistance movement obtains via the null relative Operator; the wh-word only undergoes short movement to SpecCP within the copular clause. This is true for both sentence-initial wh questions and partial wh questions. 55

This analysis also sheds new light on a puzzling pattern that is reported in both Saddy 1991 and Cole and Hermon 1998: partial wh movement is not only constrained by islands, which prevent movement out of the island, but movement within a syntactic island does not appear to be possible. For example, Cole and Hermon test the ability of apa to move within a relative clause:

As previously discussed, wh-in situ is not constrained by syntactic islands; the wh word may remain in situ in (176), within a relative island. In contrast, the partial wh question in (177) is not possible, even though no overt movement has crossed the boundary of the relative clause. Both Saddy (1991) and Cole and Hermon (1998) take this pattern to mean that overt movement of the wh element within a syntactic island is not possible. This surprising pattern is used to support Cole and Hermon’s proposal that overt wh movement of apa within the relative can be followed by covert movement to scopal position; it is the covert movement that is not possible across an island boundary in (177). However, the pattern in (176-177) receives an alternate explanation under the present analysis. Consider the most deeply embedded clause in (177): [apa yang telah makan ti ]. This is a clefted structure, which means that relative-internal movement has obtained from object position. Note, however, that the subject of this clause is the extracted argument perempuan ‘woman.’ The source of the problem, then, is not that apa moves within a syntactic island, but that two extractions have been forced from the same relative clause: both perempuan and apa have undergone movement. To my knowledge, multiple extraction has not been reported for either Indonesian or Malay. Thus (177) is ruled out. The grammaticality of (176) is also easily explained: wh-in situ involves no syntactic movement, and does not utilize a cleft strategy. The wh-word apa does not move from its base position; the argument perempuan is therefore free to undergo A-bar movement from the embedded clause. 56

The structure of clefts and wh questions naturally yield the restriction on movement of a wh word within an island. There is no longer any reason, then, to appeal to covert movement to account for (177). Next, I return to the effect of bahwa in partial wh movement. In (178-179), null C and bahwa deviate with respect to available interpretations for partial wh sentences. A null complementizer is compatible with both readings, but bahwa only permits the indirect reading.

Previously I showed that bahwa cannot introduce a clause with a wh phrase that remains in situ, because the question operator cannot bind a variable across the overt complementizer. Similarly, bahwa does not allow a matrix question interpretation in sentences with partial wh movement because the variable in the moved wh phrase must be bound by a question Operator in matrix CP. Binding across bahwa is not possible, so interrogativity is restricted to the embedded clause (below bahwa), resulting in an indirect question. Another example of an indirect reading forced by bahwa is given below with the wh-word berapa ‘how many’:

Sudah di-ketahui bahwa berapa orang yang ikut dalam rombongan. already PV-discover C how.many person C.Foc join in crowd X Matrix: ‘How many people were known to be in the crowd?’ √ Indirect: ‘It was known how many people were in the crowd.’

57

Berapa behaves like the wh-variables that we already seen throughout this chapter, apa and siapa. Bahwa does not allow a matrix question interpretation, so (181) is interpreted as an indirect question. Under the present analysis, this means that a question Operator binds berapa from the CP of the embedded clause, below bahwa. The ability of the overt complementizer bahwa to block variable binding is a novel finding, and the reason for this is not completely clear. If this blocking effect applies more broadly than in the interpretation of questions, then bahwa is expected to block other types of inter-clausal operations as well. One possibility is that bahwa is not compatible with the semantic computation of alternatives. Following Hamblin 1973; Karttunen 1977; among others, I take the denotation of a question to be a set of alternatives, i.e. possible answers to the question. The wh-word apa ‘what’ in (182) introduces this set of alternatives, e.g. {cake, rice, soup, bread... }. The semantic computation of this set of alternatives proceeds from the bottom up, passing along the alternatives in stepwise fashion. This is illustrated in a simplified way in (183):

Once the set of alternatives reaches the matrix CP, it combines with the question Operator. The sentence then has interrogative force, and the denotation of the matrix sentence is the set of alternatives {Susan thinks Tina likes cake, Susan thinks Tina likes rice, ... }. Under this view of wh in situ questions, then, binding of the wh variable in apa depends on a set of alternatives being passed along the stepwise computation at LF, until a set of propositions reaches the question Operator. If the embedded complementizer in (183) is null, the computation proceeds without exception. If the intermediate C is bahwa, however, the alternatives fail to be passed further up the structure.

59

If this is on the right track, and the incompatibility of bahwa in wh in situ questions arises from the interpretation of this overt form, this makes a prediction that bahwa might interfere with other types of semantic computation.26 For example, if a different type of Operator requires binding across a clausal boundary, then the presence of bahwa is expected to prevent such binding. Some initial evidence from embedded disjunctions appears to confirm this. Consider the embedded disjunction in the English sentence in (184) for example:

(184)

Lisa said Susan is from New York or New Jersey. a. Lisa said “Susan is from New York or New Jersey.” b. Lisa said Susan is from New York, or Lisa said Susan is from New Jersey (but I can’t remember which).

Two possibilities exist for the scope of disjunction (cf. Rooth and Partee 1982; and subsequent). The embedded disjunction can be interpreted locally (184a), in which case the embedded clause contains the disjunction: [Susan is from New York] ∨ [Susan is from New Jersey]. A second interpretation is also possible (184b), in which the disjunction scopes higher than the clause boundary: [Lisa said Susan is from New York] ∨ [Lisa said Susan is from New Jersey]. In this case, the disjunction is interpreted higher than its surface position. In Indonesian, the same ambiguity is possible when null C introduces the embedded clause:

(185)

Lisa meng-ata-kan Susan ber-asal dari New York atau New Jersey. Lisa AV-say-Appl Susan MV-origin from New York or New Jersey √ a. Lisa said “Susan is from New York or New Jersey.” b.

√

Lisa said Susan is from New York, or Lisa said Susan is from New Jersey.

If bahwa introduces the embedded clause however, the disjunction cannot scope higher than C:

(186) 26

Lisa meng-ata-kan bahwa Susan ber-asal dari New York atau New Jersey. Lisa AV-say-Appl C Susan MV-origin from New York or New Jersey

Thanks to Mitcho Erlewine for discussion and suggestions related to this point.

60

a.

√

Lisa said “Susan is from New York or New Jersey.”

b. X Lisa said Susan is from New York, or Lisa said Susan is from New Jersey.

The effect of bahwa in (186) is to limit the disjunction to a local interpretation, i.e. within the clause embedded by C. I assume that the interpretation of disjunction requires an abstract Operator (i.e. not the surface form of the disjunction), so the two scope possibilities in (184) and (185) indicate that the disjunction Operator can move higher than its surface position. In (185) the Operator can raise out of the embedded clause and scope over the matrix clause. In (186) however, the Operator is limited to the embedded clause, which suggests that bahwa blocks the movement of the disjunction Operator. The effect of bahwa is to block Operator binding across the clause boundary, similar to the unavailability of binding by a question Operator in wh-in situ questions. Similar blocking or intervention effects have been observed in other languages, with negation and focus Operators; see Larson 1985; Han and Romero 2004; Beck 2006; Beck and Kim 2006.27 This initial evidence suggests that bahwa can have semantic effects beyond the interpretation of questions, but may also apply to other Operators as well. Finally, the ability of kalau to occur in wh-in situ questions has not yet been discussed. To resummarize briefly, when occurring as a complementizer, kalau is more common in informal speech than in formal or written Indonesian. Kalau has the same distribution as bahwa when introducing declarative clauses. Bahwa is ruled out in both moved-wh questions and wh-in situ questions, while kalau is ruled out only in moved-wh questions as a consequence of wh-agreement on C. Kalau is possible in wh-in situ questions (although consultant judgments are not completely consistent), where bahwa is impossible. I repeat the relevant wh-in situ examples below:

To my knowledge, intervention effects noted to be a property of focus-sensitive operators such as only, even and negation. I leave open for future study whether bahwa is an exception to this generalization.

For what reason does kalau differ from bahwa in the wh-in situ sentences above? Since wh-in situ requires binding by a question Operator binding across C, these examples show that kalau does not block this relation in the same way that bahwa does. I have briefly mentioned in Section 2.3.5 that for embedded polar questions, either the question word apa(kah) or kalau may introduce the embedded question (kalau is less formal than apakah, which is required in written Indonesian):

These sentences have an indirect question reading, and the matrix clause does not have interrogative force, so I assume that there is no binding by a question Operator across C. However, these examples show that when the matrix verb selects for an interrogative clause, kalau may introduce a question. In general then, the complementizer kalau is compatible in interrogative contexts, for all speakers. This provides a partial explanation for the well-formedness of the wh-in situ question in (187) and (for some speakers) the acceptability of kalau in (188-189). I assume that when kalau occurs as C, it may bear an interrogative feature [Q]. As for the inconsistent judgments for kalau in (188-189), I suggest that another property of this form is relevant here. Aside from its use as an informal complementizer, kalau occurs in conditional clauses. (Other conditional morphemes include jika, jikalau, which are considered

62

formal.) As a conditional morpheme, kalau is compatible only with non-past orientation. This is illustrated in (192):

(192)

Kalau saya kuliah, saya akan ambil jurusan matematika. KALAU 1s go.to.univ 1s will take major mathematics √ ‘If I go to university, I will major in mathematics.’ √ ‘If I were to go to university, I would major in mathematics.’ √ ‘When I go to college, I will major in mathematics.’ X ‘When I went to college, I majored in mathematics.’

Kalau introduces the antecedent of a conditional clause. The clause introduced by kalau may have several different temporal readings, but is not compatible with past orientation. Returning to the examples in (187-189), only sentences with past orientation are degraded for some speakers. (188) and (189) are not compatible with kalau because they are naturally interpreted as past tense. In contrast, the embedded clause in (187) is in the future tense. Furthermore, the semantics of the matrix verb mengharap ‘expect, hope’ contrasts with berpikir, berkata ‘think,’ ‘say’ because it introduces future possibilities.

2.4. Deterministic and non-deterministic conditions on Indonesian C The discussion thus far has demonstrated that a number of semantic and syntactic conditions contribute to the surface alternations in Indonesian complementizers. The findings that have been discussed thus far are summarized in Table 2, with a list of semantico-syntactic features on C. Here I assume the general framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994) to discuss a post-syntactic phase in which abstract morphemes are replaced with phonological strings that match their featural content (Vocabulary insertion). The feature [root] results in null C, without exception. This means that all non-embedded clauses cannot occur with an overt complementizer. I have mentioned that some consultants allow sentential subjects introduced by bahwa, and also that when a clefted nominal occurs at the left

63

Root

Non-root

Features on C

Surface form(s) of C

[root]

∅

[Focus, EPP-D]

yang

Morphological wh-agreement

[EPP-D]

∅

(These features co-occur with [declarative])

[declarative]

bahwa ∼ kalau ∼ ∅

(embedded) Variable; subject to discourse-pragmatic factors

Table 2: Semantico-syntactic features on C edge of the clause it must be immediately followed by the complementizer yang. Both these cases, however, are cases of embedded C. In the case of sentential subjects, bahwa belongs to the CP constituent embedded in subject position. In pseudo-clefts, recall that a headless relative occurs as subject of a copular clause, and the complementizer yang is embedded within the subject (see tree structure in 78). The feature [EPP-D] occurs on functional heads and drives A-bar movement by attracting a DP (i.e. an Operator) to its specifier. If the nominal does not stay in this position, but continues to a higher position, the result of this A-bar movement is that C must be null.28 When C bears both [EPP-D] and [Focus], then the extracted argument remains in the specifier of C. We have already seen that in this case, C must be realized as yang. Morphological wh-agreement, then, results from the features [EPP-D] and [Focus], which determine the final position of the moved argument. The features [root], [EPP-D] and [Focus] result in deterministic conditions on the realization of C. As we have already seen however, not all of the realizations of C result from deterministic conditions. In the absence of [root], [EPP=D] and [Focus], the realization of C is variable, and may occur as bahwa, kalau or null C. This optional alternation has no semantic or syntactic motivation, 28 This approach has some similarities to the analysis in Sato 2008b, 2012. However, Sato’s analysis is based on Standard Indonesian, and does not consider variability in meN-; see further discussion below.

64

and does not depend on syntactic structure or syntactic operations. Consider a complementizer that bears a [declarative] feature. This feature is compatible with both bahwa and kalau, either of which may introduce an embedded declarative clause. The semantico-syntactic conditions on C are not deterministic, since three different realizations are possible. When C[declarative] is spelled out in the morphophonology, bahwa, kalau or null C may occur. One possible way to impose deterministic conditions on bahwa and kalau is to introduce a formal/informal distinction in the morphosyntax, e.g.: C that bears a feature [formal] is realized as bahwa; C that bears [informal] is realized as kalau. However, this approach is not adopted because it entails a strict binary opposition between bahwa and kalau, whereas either form may be used in many contexts; furthermore, there is little reason to introduce these features into the syntax since no grammatical contrasts depend on a formal-informal distinction. The optionality among bahwa, kalau and null C is implemented by two separate mechanisms. First, the choice between two overt forms, bahwa and kalau, is a pragmatic alternation between formal and informal morphemes that compete for usage. Whether bahwa or kalau is inserted at C is not determined by the featural content of C. Rather, these are exponents of competing vocabulary items whose featural content allow either to be inserted at a C node during vocabulary insertion. Competition between formal and informal roots is not unusual; in this case however, the competition is between formal and informal variants of a functional morpheme. The second mechanism that derives optional realization of C is a variable deletion rule that applies after spellout, in the morphophonology:

(193)

Variable deletion rule C [declarative] → ∅

Variable rules have been implemented in order to capture non-deterministic phenomena in other languages (cf. Labov 1969 and subsequent). The rule in (193) derives the optional alternation between overt declarative C (bahwa, kalau) and the null C. The deletion operation targets the feature [declarative]; no distinction is made between the formal and informal complementizer. 65

The surface realization of C is first determined derivationally, that is, by the synactic and semantic requirements of structure building including A-bar movement and formation of questions. External to syntax, realization of C is also subject to two mechanisms that give rise to variable surface realization: variable deletion of C (overt bahwa/kalau vs. null C), and pragmatic selection between formal and informal vocabulary items (bahwa vs. kalau)

2.5. Chapter summary In this chapter, the investigation of optional declarative C requires syntactic operations as well as extra-syntactic processes to derive the obligatory and optional alternations seen in (1-4). I have shown that when nominal A-bar extraction occurs, the highest C crossed by movement occurs as yang, while intermediate C is null; other forms are ruled out. Furthermore, bahwa is ruled out in all questions, whereas kalau may occur in wh-in situ questions that have a non-past orientation. These facts are not captured by a description of the surface distribution of these forms. Neither does a syntactic account fully explain the variability shown by bahwa and kalau: even without A-bar movement or a wh-in situ question, the overt forms bahwa/kalau may optionally be null. I have proposed a variable deletion rule to account for this optionality. The variability between bahwa and kalau, on the other hand, arises from pragmatic choice between formal and informal vocabulary. An understanding of both internal and external factors is necessary to account for the distribution of forms that alternate in a single surface position. This study in the complementizer system of Indonesian also has broader implications. I have demonstrated that Indonesian complementizers participate in wh-agreement (along with verbal voice prefixes). Indonesian C shows a pattern of wh-agreement that differentiates intermediate landing sites from the final landing site of an A-bar moved nominal, a pattern which is previously unattested. I also proposed a new analysis for wh-phrases (based on Cole and Hermon 1998), and discussed the implications of pseudo-cleft structure for moved-wh questions in Indonesian.

66

CHAPTER 3 Verbal prefixes meN- and ber3.1. Introduction The topic of this chapter is the optional realization of two verbal prefixes in Indonesian, meN- and ber-. Unlike other verbal prefixes in Indonesian, these appear to be optional in many environments. In the sentences below, verbs prefixed with meN- or ber- may also occur without the prefix:

As in other chapters of this thesis, I describe the availability of both the prefixed and unprefixed forms in the same position as “optionality” or “variability.” These terms are used for the possibility of more than one surface form available to a single speaker, and are intended to be neutral with regard to the source of the optionality; several differents factors affect the realization of meN- and ber-. These two prefixes display intra-speaker variability (rather than inter-speaker or inter-dialectal variability); the prefixed form and the unprefixed form have the same meaning in these clauses, and an individual speaker produces both forms. In contrast to (194-197), in some clauses meN- and ber- are not optional. For example, while ber- is optional in (198), the prefix is disallowed when the object is questioned (199). There is likewise a contrast between the two verbs in (200): the prefix meN- is optional on the first verb, but required on the second:

67

(198)

Dia { main / ber-main } game komputer sampai larut.malam. 3s play MV-play game computer until midnight ‘He played computer games until midnight.’

The terms “obligatory realization” and ”non-optional realization” are used to describe contexts in which only one form of the verb is possible; either the prefix must occur, or the prefix is disallowed. This chapter investigates which environments constrain the variability of meN- and ber-, and proposes an analysis that accounts for the distribution of these prefixes. The variability of meNand/or ber- in Indonesian has been observed by previous authors, e.g. Anderson 1983; Kaswanti Purwo 1989; Wolff 1990; Sneddon 1996; Voskuil 1996; Wallace 1979; Gil 2002; Nuriah 2004; Wouk 2004; Fortin 2006; Sato 2008b; Sneddon et al. 2012. The same prefixes occur in other varieties of Malay, and these have also been discussed in the literature, e.g. Soh 1998; Nomoto 2006; Nomoto and Shoho 2007; Donohue 2008; Soh and Nomoto 2009, 2011, 2015; Soh 2010; Yanti 2010; Soh 2013; McKinnon et al. 2011; Saad et al. 2015. Descriptively, there are three types of environments with regard to variability in meN-/ber-: (i) environments that disallow meN-/ber-, (ii) environments that require meN-/ber-, and (iii) environments in which meN-/ber- is optional. Both (i) and (ii) are non-optional contexts that require a prefix or disallow a prefix. These contexts have been reported to include imperatives, modal uses, nominal A-bar movement, change of state verbs, certain transitive or intransitive constructions, and many idiosyncratic roots; these are further discussed below. An overview of these environments has been included in some grammars and previous work on verbal morphosyntax (see references cited above). However, the approach that I take in this chapter is to examine non-optional contexts that have been reported for meN- and ber-, and to identify these as either deterministic or nondeterministic. The distinction between deterministic and non-deterministic factors is an important 68

one for the main argument in this chapter, which is that syntactic factors are deterministic and do not allow optional realization of meN-/ber-. Optionality arises from post-syntactic deletion of meNor ber-, a process which is subject to a number of non-deterministic factors. 3.1.1. An overview of the proposal I assume a modular and derivational view of grammar in which syntax and (morpho)phonology are separate components of the grammar; syntax is an autonomous system, and precedes the phonological component. Syntactic structures are built from roots and abstract functional heads that project syntactic structure; these heads bear features that also drive syntactic operations. After the syntactic component of the grammar is complete, the structure undergoes spellout; in the post-syntactic part of the grammar, phonological strings are inserted for abstract morphemes and other derivational processes also apply. The approach that I take to variability in meN- and ber- depends on this distinction between the syntactic and post-syntactic components of the grammar; variable rules must be implemented in the phonology rather than in the syntax, which is autonomous. I propose that meN- and ber- are subject to a number of factors that affect their (optional) realization. These factors fall into two types, deterministic and non-deterministic. Deterministic factors result in obligatory realization, i.e. a prefixed verb or a bare verb. These deterministic factors are syntactic (most notably, nominal A-bar movement, which results in morphological whagreement). If deterministic factors are not present in the syntax, then the prefix meN- or ber- is subject to variability in the morphophonology. I implement this optionality with the following rule:

(201)

Variable deletion rule meN- → ∅ ber- → ∅

This variable rule is a post-syntactic operation and is not deterministic; its rate of application varies among different speakers, and may also vary within an individual speaker. This predicts that application of the rule is influenced by a variety of factors, both grammatical (internal) and nongrammatical (external). 69

The proposed rule makes explicit the source of optionality of meN-/ber-, by placing the variability in the post-syntactic component of the grammar. It also provides an explanation for certain puzzling properties of meN- and ber-. Some of the properties attributed to meN- or berappear to be syntactic or semantic, but are not deterministic. For example, previous authors have contrasted overt meN- with the bare verb by associating the prefix with aspectual properties or cooccurrence with modals. I argue that these are strong tendencies, but these are not deterministic conditions; I present data that support this view. These non-deterministic properties arise from various factors that are correlated with the rate of variable deletion. There are also many roots that require meN- or ber-, and many others in which a root never occurs with meN- or ber-; these are “idiosyncratic” roots in the sense that they are not predictable. Superficially, these idiosyncratic cases appear to be deterministic, because different roots require or disallow the prefix. However, I suggest that these cases are also compatible with a view in which the variable deletion rule for meN-/ber- is applied at different rates for different roots. Finally, conflicting or uncertain judgments from different speakers are also accounted for under this proposal. 3.1.2. Organization of chapter This chapter has two overall goals. First, I show that the overt prefixes meN- and ber- are not completely in free variation with a null prefix. Rather, certain syntactic conditions disallow meNand ber-. I take an established generalization about Indonesian syntax, that nominal A-bar movement requires a bare verb, to be an instantiation of morphological wh-agreement. This extends the analysis of wh-agreement in Indonesian to the verbal domain; wh-agreement also occurs in the complementizer system (discussed in Chapter 2) and within the DP (Chapter 4). Second, this chapter demonstrates that both semantico-syntactic factors and extra-syntactic factors are necessary to account for the distributional and variable patterns in meN- and ber-. In previous accounts of meN-, some authors have argued that the variability between a meN- verb and a bare verb (without meN-) is explained by syntactic factors. Others argue for a discourse-pragmatic analysis in explaining the function(s) of meN-.1 I show that neither of these approaches alone 1

The prefix meN- has received much more attention in the literature than the prefix ber-, which is mostly described in grammars.

70

accounts for the optionality of meN- and ber-. A syntactic analysis alone provides no explanation for the optionality in (194)-(197). On the other hand, surface variability in meN-/ber- is often said to be a case of optional pronunciation or optional “dropping” of the prefix. The discussion in this chapter shows that a description of surface variability fails to capture several syntactic factors that disallow optionality; assuming optional pronunciation in the phonology is also insufficient to account for all the data. The outline of this chapter is as follows. In Section 3.2 I review background on Indonesian verbal prefixes and give an overview of the proposal. In Section 3.3 I survey previous analyses of meN- and ber- in Indonesian. Section 3.4 discusses deterministic factors that result in an obligatory realization of meN- or ber-. Section 3.5 discusses optionality arising from post-syntactic deletion, and non-deterministic factors affecting variable realization. Conclusions are given in Section 3.6.

Table 3: Verbal prefixes in Indonesian There is disagreement in the literature about the function of meN- and ber-. I survey various analyses in Section 3.3. Throughout this chapter, I identify meN- as an Active voice (AV) morpheme and ber- as a Middle voice (MV) morpheme; I take these to occur as the functional head Voice; support for this view is given in Section 3.4. I do not assume that all the affixes listed in Table 3 occupy the same syntactic position in the clause, nor that they occur as the same functional head. The prefixes meN- and di- can co-occur with the causative prefix per-, and per- also occurs in Object voice with the null prefix ∅-. The same prefixes (meN-, ber- and the null OV prefix) may also occur with verbal suffixes -kan, -i and -an (see Sneddon et al. 2012 for a comprehensive overview of possible combinations of prefixes and suffixes). With the exception of per-, the prefixes in Table 3 are in complementary distribution in

72

Indonesian.2 Two prefixes are variably realized, while the others are invariant. I briefly outline the non-variable prefixes below, followed by a description of variable prefixes meN- and ber-. 3.2.2. Invariant prefixes The data below illustrate that verbal morphology for passive voice (PV), object voice (OV), the prefix ter- and the circumfix ke-an are obligatory, and invariant. In (202), omitting the passive prefix di- renders the sentence ungrammatical (or changes its argument structure to an active clause). In contrast, the same root is shown in an active clauses, with the optional prefix meN-. (202)

2 There are a few verbs that occur with both meN- and ber- (ber- occurs closer to the root). This is not a productive pattern, and I have found only a few examples such as mem-ber-henti-kan, mem-ber-daya-kan. These are best treated as compounds in which an intransitive ber- verb is merged as V in an active clause and given an external argument introduced by meN-. For these cases, the meaning of the mem-ber- form is distinct from the root meaning: memberhentikan ‘to fire (someone)’ from intransitive berhenti ‘stop’; memberdayakan ‘to equip’ from intransitive berdaya ‘to have power.’

Non-variable ter- (Abilitative) a. Pesawat itu { *lihat / ter-lihat } di langit. plane that see Abil-see at sky ‘The plane can be seen in the sky (despite it being very high).’ b. Dia bisa { lihat / me-lihat } pesawat di langit. 3s can see AV-see plane at sky ‘He could see a plane in the sky.’

Finally, the prefix for Object voice is unusual because it is obligatorily null. In Object voice clauses, the Theme occurs as grammatical subject and the Agent remains in its thematic position adjacent to the verb (for discussion of clause structure in Object voice, see Chung 1976; Guilfoyle et al. 1992; Cole et al. 2008a). (207a) shows that other overt prefixes cannot occur in Object voice.

The fact the OV prefix is obligatorily null means that it is identical in form to a bare active verb, i.e. when an active verb does not occur with meN-, as in (208). This results in a potential ambiguity when the Theme of a transitive clause appears in sentence-initial position, followed by a preverbal Agent:

The active clause (208) resembles an Object voice clause, but it can be identified as an Active clause by a number of syntactic diagnostics, including the relative order of the modal/auxiliary and the Agent argument. In OV the modal/auxiliary is followed by the Agent, but in AV the Agent must be followed by the modal/auxiliary, as is the case in (208). This distinction will be an important consideration when considering surface variability of the prefix meN-: when a modal/auxiliary does not occur in a clause such as (207a) or (208), the clause is ambiguous between OV and an AV clause with a topicalized Theme. 3.2.3. On the variability of meN- and berBoth ber- and meN- have several allomorphs. With roots that begin with a consonant, ber- is sometimes realized without its last segment, as in be-serta ‘be alongside,’ be-kerja ‘work’; it is realized as bel- with only one root, bel-ajar ‘study, learn.’ The final segment of meN- is a homorganic nasal that depends on the following segment (see Sneddon et al. 2012 for a description of nasal changes

75

in meN-). Additionally, the prefix may be truncated and realized as N- instead of meN-.3 For both meN- and ber-, allomorphic alternations are not included in this discussion of variability. However, it is worth noting here that in varieties of Indonesian where both meN- and N- occur, there is a potential three-way surface optionality between meN-, N-, and the bare form of the verb (see recent studies about variation among these three forms, including discussion of N- resulting from phonological truncation of meN-, i.e. Hidajat 2013; Kushartanti 2014; Kurniawan 2015, 2016). In this chapter, I treat both overt variants (meN- and N-) as the same syntactic object, and consider the optionality between an overt prefix (represented as meN-) and a non-overt prefix. The reason for this is that both meN- and N- are subject to the same syntactic constraints, and conditions that require or disallow one form also require or disallow the other. By claiming that meN- and ber- are “optional” or “variable,” I assume that presence or absence of these morphemes does not change truth conditions, affect grammaticality or result in other semantic differences. In other words, the prefixed form and the unprefixed form are semantically equivalent, and yield the same interpretation. This is confirmed by diagnostics for semantic equivalence, some of which are presented here. First, contrastive sentences with the conjunction (te)tapi ‘but’ can draw out differences between two semantically similar verbs as in (209):

The same verb occuring with a prefixed form and a bare form is not felicitous in this type of clause, showing that there is no contrastive difference in meaning between the prefixed form and the bare form:

3 In some varieties of Indonesian, particularly in colloquial Jakartan Indonesian, the active voice prefix is N- rather than meN-. This segment also undergoes phonological alternations depending on the initial segment of the stem; these are mostly the same changes to the nasal segment in meN-, with a few differences; see Wallace 1979; Sneddon 2006; Hidajat 2013; Kurniawan 2015.

Since the same root occurs in both forms however, semantic differences between the two may be subtle. The following clauses draw out aspectual distinctions in different forms of a verb (with the same root). The adverb tetap ‘still, constantly’ describes a persistent state or activity, whereas tibatiba ‘suddenly’ is compatible with punctiliar or instantaneous achievements. Both prefixed and bare forms are possible with these adverbs:

Where meN- and ber- are described as optional or variable, the prefixed form and the bare form pattern together in semantic diagnostics such as these, given a verb root and clause type in which a prefixed form and a bare form are both possible. It is worth noting that these distributional patterns are found to be more reliable than speaker intuitions about the meanings of functional elements such as verbal prefixes. For example, when asked whether there is any difference between bohong and berbohong in (212), my consultants offered a variety of responses, including: the bare form is used in anger; the bare form is simple reporting while the prefixed form will be followed by more details; the prefixed form is a description of (the subject’s) true nature, while the bare form is neutral; the prefixed form is proper, while the 77

bare form is everyday speech; etc. Anecdotally speaking, these replies sometimes have an ad hoc quality, and consultants often disagreed with one another. Under the account that I develop here, such inconsistent responses are not altogether unexpected. When a clause allows variable ber- (or meN-), the option between an overt prefix and a non-overt prefix is influenced by a variety of factors, both grammatical and extra-grammatical. See Section 3.5 for further discussion.

3.3. Previous analyses of meN- and berThere is disagreement in the literature about the functions of meN- and ber- in Indonesian (and Malay). I survey various analyses in this section; each addresses a particular pattern or contrast exhibited by the prefixes, but I show that exceptions exist for every generalization. Furthermore, few have addressed the optional realization as part of the analysis. Generally speaking, no analysis completely accounts for all the syntactic properties and distribution of meN-/ber- in all contexts. I begin with the prefix meN-, which I have labeled an active voice (AV) marker. Early grammars identified meN- as a marker of active voice or agentive voice, in opposition to the passive voice marker di-, and this view is held by many contemporary authors as well (Macdonald and Dardjowidjojo 1967; Dardjowidjojo 1978; Sneddon 1996; Arka and Manning 1998; Arka 2000; Cole and Hermon 1998; Voskuil 2000; Aldridge 2008; Cole et al. 2008a; Son and Cole 2008; Sneddon et al. 2012). In active voice, the thematic Agent or the external argument of the verb occurs as the preverbal subject of the clause (216). This is in opposition to passive clauses, in which an internal object or Theme occurs as subject, and the external argument or Agent is optionally expressed in a PP (217).

Other authors view these preixes as markers that indicate which argument is the trigger or focused element, e.g. Guilfoyle et al. 1992; Gil 2002; Wouk 2004. Under this view, meN- marks Agent/Actor focus or Agent/Actor trigger in (216), while di- marks Patient/Theme/Undergoer focus or Patient/Theme/Undergoer trigger in (217). This approach places Indonesian within the larger context of Austronesian languages that mark the most prominent argument in the clause (the trigger) with verbal morphology (see Kroeger 1993; Rackowski 2002; Rackowski and Richards 2005; and others on verbal morphology in Tagalog). There are exceptions to both views. MeN- can also occur on unaccusative verbs that do not have an external argument or Agent/Actor. For example, the intransitive verbs mencair ‘melt,’ menguning ‘turn yellow,’ and meledak ‘explode’ occur with meN- in (218-220), yet these clauses have only an internal argument or Undergoer:

For Malay, Soh and Nomoto (2011) argue that all intransitive meN- verbs are unergative, and that unaccusatives do not occur with meN-. Soh and Nomoto assume that both A-bar movement and A movement over a meN- verb requires a bare verb form (or the movement causes meN- deletion, in their terminology). According to the Unaccusativity Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978), the Theme of an unaccusative verb begins as an internal argument; when this argument undergoes A movement to subject position, it crosses the verb; this should cause meN- deletion. In contrast, the sole argument of an unergative verb is an external argument, which does not cross the verb when it raises to subject position; this does not cause meN- to delete. The implication is that intransitive verbs that occur with meN- must only have an external argument, i.e. unergatives. This proposal attempts to unify the various types of predicates that occur with meN-: meN- always selects an external argument, whether it occurs on a transitive or intransitive verb. However, in Section 3.4, I argue that only A-bar movement affects the realization of meN-, and A-movement does not; see evidence presented in that discussion. This weakens the strict correlation between meN- and unergativity. Additionally, Soh and Nomoto’s claim is surprising for a number of Indonesian meN- verbs in (221). For example, change of state predicates with external

80

causation, such as membeku ‘freeze,’ mencair ‘melt,’ and other predicates such as meletus ‘burst,’ menjadi ‘become’ are cross-linguistically unaccusative. Furthermore, the syntactic diagnostics that used to differentiate unergatives from unaccusatives do not hold for Indonesian. For example, Soh and Nomoto (2011) observe that the single argument of an unaccusative verb may occur in a postverbal position, whereas the single argument of an unergative must occur in a preverbal position. For Indonesian, many verbs, including those with meN-, allow subjects to occur postverbally, with the resulting word order V(O)S; I assume that VP-raising accounts for this variation in word order. I proceed without the assumption that meN- verbs always select an external argument in Indonesian. Returning to the intransitive verbs in (221), these cannot take an object. However, many of these verbs allow meN- to occur simultaneously with an applicative suffix (-kan or -i). In this case the verb is transitive.

This pattern is not only seen with unaccusatives. As previous examples show, not all transitive meNverbs require the suffix -kan/-i. Intransitive unergatives can also be made transitive if both meN- and -i occur:

It is clear that meN- occurs on both transitive and intransitive verbs. Yet some authors have claimed that meN- marks transitivity, or both (active) voice and transitivity (e.g. Chung 1976; Saddy 1991; Cole and Hermon 1998). This view is based on several observations that correlate meN- with (in)transitivity. First, while intransitive verbs take several different prefixes (meN-, ber-, ter-, ke-an), almost all transitive verbs occur with meN- (Sneddon 1996). There are important exceptions that defy this generalization: examples of ber- verbs that take complements are discussed in (253-256). A different observation correlates meN- with intransitivity: Sneddon (1996) notes that meN- is not optional on intransitive verbs; e.g. the verbs in (221) must occur with meN- prefixation. While this is the case in Standard Indonesian, it does not hold in colloquial spoken Indonesian; most intransitive verbs in (221) may occur without meN-, e.g.:

Thus it is not the case that all intransitive meN- verbs must occur with the prefix. Another correlation between meN- and transitivity is suggested by Fortin (2006): a “semantically transitive” verb that allows optional realization of meN-, cannot occur in bare form if the object is not expressed.

The bare form of the verb is obligatory in (230) on the assumption that these are transitive verbs without an overt object. This is indeed unexpected if meN- only marks voice (or Agent focus/trigger). 82

For my consultants however, sentences such as (230) are unremarkable in colloquial Indonesian, even if they are not acceptable in standard Indonesian. Semantically transitive verbs do occur in bare form, without an overt object, in informal written sources as well. Both of these observations regarding transitivity, then, appear to be tendencies rather than grammatical principles. Given the grammaticality of (230) in colloquial Indonesian, the correlation between an overt object and meNis weakened. A different pattern, also related to transitivity, is that a transitive verb with an object may occur with or without meN-, but if the verb occurs with an object clitic, meN- is obligatory (Musgrave 2001; Sneddon et al. 2012; also see Kroeger 2014 on Malay):4

The relevant contrast is between (232), which does not occur with a clitic pronoun, and (233), which occurs with the clitic -nya. The same pattern is claimed to exist for first and second person clitics (234). Example (233) is particularly striking because makan ‘eat’ belongs to the set of verbs that rarely occurs with the prefix meN-. Unlike previous observations about the correlation between meN- and transitivity, this pattern appears to hold in colloquial Indonesian as well as Standard Indonesian. It is a deterministic condition that requires meN-. 4

In Chapter 4 I argue that the clitic -nya is the functional head D in cases of possessor extraction. This example does not involve extraction, so I leave -nya glossed as 3s, consistent with assumptions in the literature. However, I note that the status of -nya is an open issue.

83

Interestingly, the pattern only holds for clitics, not for free pronouns. Compare (233-234) with the following examples in which both the prefixed form and the meN- form occur with free pronouns:

The pronouns in (233-234) are called clitics because of their phonological attachment, but these clitics do not undergo movement at all, occuring only in immediately postverbal object position. This suggests that transitivity, case marking or thematic relations are not at issue. The question, then, is what differentiates these forms from free pronouns, and why this should require the prefix meN-. I suggest that the reason has to do with the ability of personal pronouns to occur in different argument positions, including as possessors. For example, when the clitic -nya occurs on a verb without meN-, it is identical to a nominalized form of the verb (i.e. a gerundive form), which also occurs with the suffix -nya:

A bare verb with object clitic and a gerundive verb, then, have the same form. I suggest that meN- is required with an object clitic so that its form is distinct from a gerundive form. The same requirement does not hold for a free object pronoun because it is not homophonous with a gerundive form. This particular deterministic condition on meN-, therefore, arises from a syntactic condition (transitive verb with an object clitic) as well as an extra-syntactic factor, which is a constraint on homophonous forms: the bare verb with object clitic makan-nya is ruled out because it is identical to the gerundive form. The prefix meN- is required in order to disambiguate the two. In sum, the pattern does not arise because meN- marks transitivity, but because of competition between two homophonous forms. Soh and Nomoto (2009, 2015) claim that meN- has aspectual effects in Malay. They note that meN-prefixed verbs, when contrasted with bare verbs, have a progressive interpretation in Malay: 5

(239) resembles possessor extraction, in which the possessor moves out of its possessive DP and the possessum is suffixed with -nya; see Chapter 4. For the purposes of this discussion of homophony, nothing hinges on an analysis of possessor extraction in these examples.

The fall in price is reported to be abrupt in (243), whereas the falling in (244) is gradual. Indonesian speakers share the same intuition for the contrast between (243) and (244); the second sentence is interpreted to mean that the event is in progress. However, I suggest that this interpretation is strongest when the two sentences are contrasted with each other. In isolation, the aspectual meaning of menurun is not obligatory in (244). For example, both turun and menurun may occur with the adverbs tetap ‘still, constantly,’ tiba-tiba ‘suddenly,’ the perfective morpheme telah, and the progressive morpheme sedang.6 The ability of both forms to occur with different aspectual interpretations is illustrated below:

It is also worth noting that meN- occurs on verbs that describe a single (punctual) event, e.g. see example (225) with me-lompat ‘jump.’ These facts show that progressive aspect can be encoded by aspectual morphemes such as adverbs, or else it can arise in context. In other words, the correlation between meN- and progressive aspect is taken to be a tendency rather than a property of the prefix. Some authors argue that meN- has discourse-pragmatic functions (e.g. Wallace 1979; Kana 1983; Kaswanti Purwo 1989; Voskuil 1996; among others). For example, Kaswanti Purwo (1989) argues that meN- is used instead of a bare verb in the following discourse-pragmatic contexts: in 6

Soh and Nomoto 2009 note that sedang may occur with some verbs that describe transitory states.

86

narration, especially 3 person narration; for backgrounding; in responses; in requests for confirmation; in direct speech to an addressee; in indirect imperatives; in the presence of a modal. Voskuil (1996) argues that meN- is a voice marker, but that the bare form, rather than the meN-prefixed form, has discourse-pragmatic properties and emotive associations. Importantly however, these discourserelated properties are non-deterministic factors for the realization of meN-. In other words, meNis not strictly required by any of the contexts noted above; neither is the bare verb required. For example, a bare verb is also possible in most of the contexts that Kaswanti Purwo identifies as associated with meN-: bare verbs can be used in 3 person narration, for responses and requests, with a modal, etc. Likewise, Voskuil’s claim that the bare form has emotive associations is also a non-deterministic tendency: a meN-prefixed verb may always occur in emotive contexts instead of a bare verb, although meN- verbs are less frequent. These discourse-pragmatic properties are taken to be probabilistic patterns that emerge in usage. Before turning to ber-, there are a number of roots that can take either meN- or ber-. This property is not predictable based on the semantics of the root: (247)

The distinction between meN- and ber- is often reported to be transitive vs. intransitive, or between eventive vs. stative predicates (Soh and Nomoto 2009, 2011). Attributive uses of ber- verbs (as in meja berbekas) do fit this distinction, describing only states, e.g. membekas ‘leave a mark/stain’ vs. 87

meja berbekas ‘table with a stain.’ However, the list of verbs in (247) shows that this distinction does not hold in all cases. I find that the ber- and meN- forms can have the same semantics, such that the pairs of verbs pattern together according to semantic diagnostics (see Section 3.2.3). For example, berbekas and membekas can both mean ‘leave a mark/stain.’ For many verbs, therefore, semantics or syntactic behavior do not differentiate between the prefixes ber- and meN-. Turning now to ber-, which I have labeled a middle voice (MV) marker, authors agree that the functions of ber- are numerous, and often unpredictable. For example, Sneddon et al. (2012) list various functions for ber-: reflexive predicates (248), forming verbs whose meaning is ‘have [root]’ (249) or ‘use [root]’ (250), reciprocal relationship (251), and other semantically diverse predicates (252):

Like intransitive meN- verbs, ber- verbs include both unaccusatives (berada ‘exist’) and unergatives (berenang ‘swim’). Many adjectival predicates can also occur with ber- (bergembira ‘be glad,’ berhitam ‘be black colored’). Ber- is usually claimed to mark intransitive verbs (Macdonald and Dardjowidjojo 1967; Sneddon 1996), even though we have already seen that some intransitives occur with meN- , teror ke-an. Hopper and Thompson (1980) identify ber- as marking constructions which have “low transitivity”: this is not only associated with the absence of an object, but also with the ability to be nominalized, expressing continuing states, and occurrence in reflexives and reciprocals (1980:278). However, while ber- mostly occurs on intransitive verbs, it is possible for a few ber- verbs to take complements. This includes nominal complements (253-254) as well as clausal complements (255256):

In brief, the overall picture that emerges from this survey is that meN- and ber- both escape simple characterization as markers of voice, focus/trigger or transitivity. The functions of meNand ber- can be descriptively generalized, but must also admit a number of exceptions, which must be memorized as they are not predictable. Although meN- may be associated with (in)transitivity in Standard Indonesian, the colloquial spoken Indonesian that is discussed here does not place the same constraints on the optionality of meN-. I have also shown that while meN- is descriptively

89

associated with discourse-pragmatic properties, these are tendencies that arise from usage, not from deterministic factors. For the purposes of this chapter, which is focused on variable and non-variable realizations of the prefixes, I treat meN- and ber- as morphemes that occupy a particular structrual position, rather than having a single grammatical function. Both meN- and ber- occur in the position of the functional head Voice. The main evidence for this is that meN- and ber- are sensitive to A-bar movement that proceeds through the edge of phases, which suggests that both meN- and ber- are phase heads. I argue for this view in the next section.

3.4. Deterministic factors affecting the realization of meN- and berIn this section I discuss contexts in which meN- and ber- are not optional. These are deterministic factors, such that either a prefixed form or a bare verb is required in the specified environment. 3.4.1. Nominal A-bar movement A well-known syntactic pattern in Indonesian (and some related languages) is that nominal A-bar movement over an active verb requires a bare verb instead of a prefixed verb. This has been observed by many previous authors for meN- (Wallace 1979; Kana 1983; Kaswanti Purwo 1989; Saddy 1991; Cole and Hermon 1998; Soh 1998; Voskuil 2000; Nuriah 2004; Wouk 2004; Cole and Hermon 2005; Fortin 2006, 2009; Donohue 2007; Aldridge 2008; Arka and Manning 2008; Cole et al. 2008b; Sato 2008b, 2012; Yanti 2010; Nomoto 2013). In Chapter 2 I discuss properties of nominal extraction; see that discussion for a summary of general properties of A-bar movement in Indonesian, including syntactic islands and pseudo-cleft structure. The relationship between A-bar movement and verbal morphology is summarized in Cole and Hermon’s Generalization:

(257)

Cole and Hermon’s Generalization The obligatory omission of meng- with verbs that would otherwise permit meng- indicates

90

the movement of an NP argument over the meng- + verb. (Sato 2008b, citing Cole and Hermon 1998:231)

As illustrated below, A-bar movement of a DP from the complement of a transitive verb is only possible when the verb does not bear meN-. The prefix is usually optional on these verbs:

The movement of a DP over the verb requires a bare verb in (259) and (262). When DP movement occurs from subject position, as in (260) and (263), it does not affect the realization of meN-: both the prefixed form and the bare form are possible. Thus, subject extraction differs from object extraction because the nominal does not cross the verb, so that the movement does not have consequences for verbal morphology. The same pattern is observed with nominal extraction from a ber- clause, as observed by Soh (2013). Recall that a few ber- verbs can take complements; if a DP is extracted over these verbs, ber- is disallowed and the verb must appear in bare form: 91

(264)

Dia { main / ber-main } game komputer sampai larut malam. 3s play MV-play game computer until late night ‘He played computer games until the middle of the night.’ (modified from Soh 2013:169)

(265)

Apa-kah yang dia { main / *ber-main } what-Q C.Foc 3s play MV-play ‘What did he play until midnight?’

(266)

{ main / ber-main } game komputer sampai larut malam? Siapa yang play MV-play game computer until late night who C.Foc ‘Who played computer games until the middle of the night?’

The prefix ber- is disallowed whether the DP moves from object position as in (265), or from an embedded clause in long distance movement (268). Similar to meN-, subject extraction does not affect the realization of ber-. While the relationship between nominal extraction and meN- is well established, the data above show that Cole and Hermon’s Generalization should be extended to berverbs as well. The loss of optionality in meN-/ber- in case of A-bar movement has two implications. First, the obligatory null morphology (i.e. bare verb) in case of A-bar movement is taken to be an instance of morphological wh-agreement. Cross-linguistically, wh-agreement occurs in structures derived by A-bar movement (wh-movement), such as constituent questions and relatives. The resulting morphology usually occurs on V or C (Reintges et al. 2006; see Chapter 2 for a full summary of cross-linguistic generalizations about wh-agreement). Throughout this thesis, I argue that A-bar movement has morphological consequences on complementizers, verbs and nominals. Extraction over C requires that the complementizer must be null (for intermediate C) or must occur as yang 92

(for highest C). Possessor extraction over D requires that D occurs overtly as the suffix -nya must be overt. In the verbal domain, wh-agreement is required when a DP undergoes A-bar movement from the complement of the verb to a high position in the clause. The form of wh-agreement in this case is a null verbal prefix instead of meN-/ber-. The morphemes that are involved in Indonesian wh-agreement share an interesting property: they are optionally realized in many environments, but not in case of nominal extraction. In other words, A-bar movement is marked by a loss of optionality. Generally speaking, nominal A-bar movement is a deterministic factor in the realization of C, D and meN-/ber-. The effect of nominal A-bar movement on meN-/ber- also implicates syntactic phases. The structure of a clause with a meN- prefixed verb (270) is given in (271).

The extended verbal structure of the clause includes both vP and VoiceP. Verbal prefixes are hosted in a functional head: v hosts the causative morpheme per-, and Voice hosts the voice morphemes meN-, ber-, di-, and the null Object voice prefix.7 Following Pylkkanen 2002, 2008; Harley 2013; Legate 2014, the external argument is introduced in the specifier of VoiceP. This external argument is raised to the preverbal position of grammatical subjects in SpecIP, as shown in (271). The other morphemes involved in wh-agreement are assumed to be phase heads: complementizers and the prefix -nya are taken to be phase heads C and D, respectively. The phase head, which attracts a nominal to its specifier for extraction, is specially marked as a result of this movement. Likewise, I take meN-/ber- to occur in the position of a phase head, Voice. Successive-cyclic A-bar movement from the complement of the verb must proceed through the specifier of VoiceP (first suggested by Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2008) for vP; also see van Urk and Richards 2015 for recent work showing that successive-cyclic movement proceeds through the edge of every verb phrase and the edge of every clause). This movement results in special (null) morphology on the head Voice. An example of object extraction is illustrated in the tree structure below:

?

(272)

Apa yang aku dapat what C.Foc 1s receive ‘What did I receive?’

(273)

A-bar extraction of object through Spec,VoiceP 8

7

The prefix meN- may co-occur with the causative morpheme per-. Ber-, on the other hand, cannot co-occur with per-, which leaves open the possibility that ber- occurs as a combined functional head, VoiceP/vP. This possibility does not affect the analysis here since this combined projection remains the highest verbal projection; successive-cyclic movement would pass through the edge of the VoiceP/vP. I leave this as an open question. 8 For ease of exposition, movement of the wh-phrase apa is shown here instead of Operator movement. See Chapter 2 for discussion on the structure of clefts and Operator movement in nominal extraction.

94

CP C0

DP apa

C

‘what’

[EPP-D]

DP

[declartv]

aku

yang

1s

IP I0 I

VoiceP VoiceP0

DP

VoiceP0

DP

aku

apa

vP

Voice [EPP-D] ∅-

v

VP V

DP

dapat

apa

‘receive’

In case of object extraction through the edge of VoiceP, the phase head has an edge feature [EPPD] which targets DPs for movement through its specifier. The effect of nominal A-bar movement through SpecVoiceP is that the functional head Voice cannot be spelled out as meN- or ber-. Instead, the verb must occur bare, without a voice prefix. Precisely speaking, wh-agreement results from the [EPP-D] feature on a phase head; [EPP-D] on Voice is a deterministic factor in the realization of meN-/ber-. (See also Chapters 2 and 4 for a derivational account of nominal extraction through the edge of CP and DP, respectively.) Excursus: Is meN- sensitive to A-movement? Some authors have taken Cole and Hermon’s Generalization to apply to both A-bar movement and A-movement, whereas I claim that meN- is only sensitive to A-bar movement. I address this issue here, because it has implications for the wh-agreemenet analysis that I propose. If both A-bar 95

movement and A-movement result in a bare verb, this weakens the case for wh-agreement, which is a phenomenon specific to A-bar (wh-) movement. The question is whether A movement over a meN- verb requires a null prefix; there is general consensus that this is the case for A-bar movement. Early work on the correlation between meNand nominal movement in Saddy 1991 did not differentiate between A and A-bar movement, noting only that NP displacement over an active verb was not possible with meN-. Although much of the literature on this correlation examines the formation of questions and relatives (typical instances of A-bar movement), Cole and Hermon (1998) make the explicit claim that meN- is sensitive to both A and A-bar movement in Malay: “the loss of meng- is not restricted to wh-questions. Rather, it also occurs in object preposing constructions and in relative clause formation and focus movement” (1998:232). “Object preposing” constructions are Object voice clauses, in which the internal argument (Theme) of the transitive verb occurs as preverbal grammatical subject, as in (274) (see also example 207).

Both Chung 1976 and Cole and Hermon 2005 provide evidence that the Theme in Object voice occurs in the position of grammatical subjects, an A position. Note that the verb must occur in its bare form (without meN-), which Cole and Hermon attribute to A-movement of the object Ali across the verb. In later work on Indonesian relatives, Cole and Hermon (2005) further note, “In our analysis it is irrelevant whether a noun phrase moves across a verb by A-movement or A-bar movement. The fact that both A-movement and A-bar movement result in the same morphological result (the omission of meN-) might be viewed as a virtue since the analysis provides a unitary analysis for a wide range of data or as a flaw since, as an anonymous referee points out, it is uncommon in the languages of the world for A and A-bar to result in the same morphological effects on the verb” (2005:85, footnote 17; the relevant movement is shown in their example 34). The claim that meN- is sensitive to both A-bar movement and A movement has been adopted 96

by other authors as well (e.g. Nuriah 2004; Soh and Nomoto 2011; Sato 2012; Soh 2013; Nomoto 2013). Sato (2012) extends Cole and Hermon’s analysis to Object voice clauses in Kendal Javanese, assuming that both A-movement and A-bar movement cause meN- to delete (2012:37). If correct, this view weakens the case for the lack of voice prefix as a type of wh-agreement in Indonesian, since wh-agreement is cross-linguistically noted to be a morphological reflex of Abar (or wh-) movement. Furthermore, I have argued that wh-agreement in Indonesian is marked on phase heads when DP movement passes through the edge of the phase; but raising to subject position to satisfy EPP is not usually taken to be cyclic movement through a phase edge (although alternate analyses claim that passive vP, or all types of vP, are phases, e.g. Legate 2003; Boˇskovi´c 2014). Indonesian provides evidence that meN- is sensitive only to A-bar movement, and that the bare verb form in Object voice has nothing to do with A movement of the Theme. Cole and Hermon assume that Object voice clauses such as (274) would occur with the active voice prefix meN-, if not for A movement of the Theme over the verb. Transitive clauses and Object voice clauses, then, both have the same structure at the beginning of the derivation, at which point meN- is not yet ruled out. In an active clause, the external argument becomes the grammatical subject, but in an Object voice clause, it is an internal argument that becomes grammatical subject while the external argument remains in situ.9 It is important to note that unlike active clauses, which can be observed with and without meN-, Object voice clauses never occur with meN-. The ostensible reason, according to this view, is that the subject position must be filled in Indonesian, so a DP object cannot be left low in the clause, which rules out meN-. If the object remains low, and no movement crosses the verb, the prediction is that meN- will be able to occur in Object voice clauses. I test the prediction with verbs that embed CP complements. In Indonesian, leaving the grammatical subject position empty is possible with a CP complement, which may be left low. This is illustrated with the adjectival predicate ternyata ‘obvious’ and the passive verb dipastikan ‘confirmed’: 9

Object voice also places restrictions on the set of nominals that may occur as external argument; see Chung 1976; Cole et al. 2008b.

Not all Indonesian speakers accept sentential subjects as in (275) and (277).10 For all speakers however, a CP complement can remain in its base position, leaving the subject position empty, as in (276) and (278). Now turning to Object voice clauses, the prediction is that when the CP complement remains in a low position, meN- will be possible on the verb since no movement, A or A-bar, has occurred. In the following Object clause sentences, the verb takes a CP as its object:

Most of my consultants reject (275), except one speaker from Jakarta; however, examples of sentential subjects are frequent in the literature and in Indonesian grammars, which suggest regional variation and formality affect their acceptability.

These are unambiguous Object voice clauses: the auxiliaries akan and sudah occur before the Agent, which is not possible in active clauses.11 Furthermore, the clitic pronoun ku does not occur in subject position, which shows that the subject position must be empty in (283). The prediction is not borne out: even when no movement crosses the verb, an Object voice verb cannot occur with meN-, as shown in (281) and (284). Therefore A-movement of the internal argument to subject position is not the source of the null voice morphology in Object voice. Rather, all Object voice verbs must have a null prefix, independent of movement. Since Object voice clauses constitute the primary piece of evidence in support of the view that meN- is sensitive only to A movement, there is little reason to adhere to this view. I conclude that meN- is only sensitive to Abar movement in Indonesian, and that meN- cannot occur when a DP undergoes successive-cyclic movement through the edge of VoiceP. The obligatory null voice marking that replaces meN- in case of nominal A-bar movement retains the properties of wh-agreement. Furthermore, the morpheme that occurs on the verb in Object voice is a stored form that is always phonologically null. 3.4.2. Other syntactic and semantic constraints on optionality Returning to other deterministic contexts that require a certain pronunciation of meN-/ber-, the prefix is disallowed when the verb occurs as a modal or auxiliary. This applies to a small set of verbs, for example:

11 Note that examples like (274) are ambiguous between object voice clauses and active clauses with a topicalized Theme and (optionally) unpronounced prefix meN-. To avoid this ambiguity, I include auxiliaries in these examples, which occur before the Agent in Object voice, in order to disambiguate these from active clauses (in which the Agent occurs before auxiliaries).

The roots coba ‘try’ and suka ‘like’ are not typically identified as modals or aspectual auxiliaries, but the sentences above demonstrate that they can occur either as main verb or in positions reserved for modals/auxiliaries. In (286), the relative order of coba and the pronominal Agent aku indicate this is an Object voice clause; only modals and auxiliaries may occur in this position. In (288), suka has an aspectual meaning (frequency), which is distinct from its verbal meaning, ‘like.’ Where these forms as used as modal or auxiliary, they do not occur as category V, and do not have a Voice projection. Therefore coba and suka cannot take the verbal prefixes meN-/ber- when used as modal or auxiliary.12 Another deterministic condition on meN- is required by change of state verbs. For example, the following verbs (among others) must always be prefixed with meN-:

The un-prefixed forms are only possible with non-change of state meanings, i.e. ‘I felt itchy and my face was red’ (289); ‘Ice at the North Pole is currently liquid’ (290). Unlike other deterministic contexts that affect meN-, change of state verbs require an overt prefix rather than a bare verb. 12

See Jeoung 2018 for other verbs that may occur in the position of modal/auxiliary in Indonesian.

100

The roots of these verbs are basic states (in the sense of Embick 2004; see also KoontzGarboden and Beavers 2017), while the inflected form with meN- entails a change of state. Following the general approach in Hale and Keyser 2002, I assume that these intransitive change of state predicates are derived by combining the root with a structural head v that introduces semantics of change or becoming: [v v-BECOME merah ] (see also Embick 2004 in which the head bearing the feature [FIENT] derives the same result). When this structure combines with Voice, the prefix meNis required; for verbs that do not denote a change of state, the root is combined with another type of v head. In the absence of v-BECOME, meN- remains optional. Relatedly, Soh and Nomoto (2015) argue that for Malay, meN- is incompatible with verbs that express states, in contrast to a bare verb (without meN-), which may describe a state. (Diagnostics for this claim are presented in Soh and Nomoto 2009, 2015). MeN-prefixation requires that the verb express an event; this is because meN- occurs as v, which can only combine with a VP that describes eventualities with stages. Under this view, meN- is a light verb (v), rather than a voice morpheme.13 Soh and Nomoto (2015) are not alone in arguing that the category of meN- is v. Cole et al. (2008b) also suggest that meN- is hosted in v (although they claim that meN- marks active voice). Nuriah (2004) proposes that meN- is a categorial marker, marking non-verbal roots as category V. Although Nuriah does not specifically address change of state verbs (the main argument is concerned with thematic roles and their mapping to meN- and -kan), the proposal is that meN- is a syntactic head that determines the category of the root, and that meN- must be overt when the root is a non-V category. This account assumes that the category of the root is transparent, based on intuitions about its most prominent meaning when it occurs in isolation (without affixation). However, this assumption is not well supported for many roots, i.e.:

13 Another claim made by Soh and Nomoto (2015) concerns degree achievement verbs in Malay that occur with meN-. The claim is that when meN- occurs on degree achievement verbs, they must receive atelic interpretations in Malay, in contrast to bare verbs, which can either be telic or atelic. See Soh and Nomoto 2015:150-152 for diagnostics that tease apart telic and atelic verbs. However, I find that the relevant contrasts do not exist in colloquial Indonesian; meN- verbs may occur in both atelic and telic frames. I therefore do not pursue this issue with degree achievement verbs.

The unprefixed roots in these examples can often occur as either a verb or noun, which renders it difficult to distinguish which roots must be morphologically marked with meN-. Furthermore, the causative morpheme per- occurs between meN- and the root:

This is unexpected if the prefix meN- is a verbalizing head that determines the category of the root; under standard assumptions, no morpheme should intervene between the root and its categorydefining head. This is also an unexplained problem for the view that meN- is a light verb, hosted in v. I do not assume then, that meN- is a categorizing head, a light verb or v-BECOME. If meNoccurs as the head Voice, as I have suggested, it is reasonable to suggest that adjacency between VoiceP and vP makes the head Voice sensitive to the content of v. The presence of the head vBECOME

requires that the verb is prefixed with meN-.

Finally, all direct imperative verbs in Indonesian must occur without meN- or ber-:14

(294) { Pakai / *me-makai } pensil yang bagus untuk ujian. use AV-use pencil that good for test ‘Use a good pencil for the test.’ 14 Passive verbs can be used for polite or indirect commands in Indonesian, and these are reported to have the same imperative force as direct commands like (294). Interestingly, the passive prefix di- may occur in an imperative context:

Like imperative clauses in many other languages, these clauses have a surface structure that is similar to declarative clauses. Following analyses of imperatives in other languages, I assume that imperative clauses have an imperative Operator located within CP, which derives an imperative interpretation (Han 2000). This imperative Operator is incompatible with inflection on the verb (in the form ofmeN-/ber-). By dividing deterministic from non-deterministic conditions on the realization of meN-/ber-, I have considered only those factors that are deterministic, requiring or disallowing the prefix meN/ber- in the specified context. The deterministic factors discussed are: A-bar movement, modal or auxiliary use, imperatives and change of state verbs. The first three of these disallow meN-/ber, while change of state verbs require meN-/ber-. In these environments, syntactic and semantic constraints are determinants in the overall picture of variability, and any description of the distribution of meN-/ber- must be incomplete without reference to these. In the next section I consider non-deterministic properties related to meN- and ber-.

3.5. Variable contexts and non-deterministic factors 3.5.1. Variable deletion rule and its effects The prefixes meN- and ber- are optional so long as deterministic factors do not apply. Potential examples of verbs with optional meN-/ber- are numerous. The following sentences illustrate verbs from a range of semantic classes, and also show the optional morphology in both matrix and embedded clauses.

The proposed source of variability in meN-/ber- is the variable rule stated in the Introduction, repeated here below:

(306)

Variable deletion meN- → ∅

104

ber- → ∅

The rule applies in the morphophonology, i.e. a post-syntactic component of the grammar, after the syntactic structure has undergone spellout to PF. When the rule is applied, the prefix meN- or the prefix ber- is deleted, i.e. phonologically unrealized. I have stated one rule for meN- and another for ber-, so that each rule may be applied independently. Collapsing the two rules into a single abstract rule would result in a simpler generalization (e.g. Voice → ∅); however, it is not clear that meNand ber- occur in the same syntactic position, to the exclusion of passive prefix di- (which is not variable). Furthermore, the variability of meN- is potentially affected by a different set of factors than ber-; stating the rule in this way also allows a different rate of application for each prefix. Note that the rule is not stated over an abstract morpheme or syntactic node (e.g. Voice); instead, the rule targets the phonological content of each morpheme. This assumes that the rule applies after phonological strings have been inserted into nodes in the structure supplied by the syntax. Where meN- and ber- are not inserted, optionality does not exist, since variability arises from deletion of a phonological string. Recall that three of the deterministic conditions require a null prefix: A-bar movement, modal/auxiliary and imperatives. These three conditions are deterministic in the sense that the variable rule in (306) never applies. Insertion of a phonologically null morpheme, or (in the case of modal/auxiliary) lack of a structural position for meN-/ber-, effectively removes the possibility of optionality in meN-/ber-. These conditions bleed the application of (306), since no phonological string can be targeted for deletion. One additional consequence of implementing a variable rule in the morphophonology, is that optionality is not captured by a system of deterministic rules for vocabulary insertion (within the framework of Distributed Morphology; cf. Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994). To illustrate this point, briefly consider the analysis in Sato 2012, which discusses meN- and its obligatory absence in case of A-bar movement in Standard Indonesian. In Sato’s account, meN- is usually inserted as an AV morpheme. If a nominal undergoes successive-cyclic movement through the edge of the verbal domain (v*P, following Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2008), it deletes an uninterpretable feature on the phase head, which he calls a D-feature. When this feature is deleted, the prefix meN- can no longer 105

be inserted during vocabulary insertion. Instead, a null exponent is insert as an elsewhere item. This is captured by the vocabulary items in (307):

(307)

meN-

↔ [v

∅meN − ↔ [v

[+D]] [ ... ]] (Sato 2012:41)

It is important to note that Sato’s proposes this analysis for Standard Indonesian, which means that surface optionality of meN- is not considered; he explicitly states that meN- is obligatory when Abar movement does not obtain (2012:33). The vocabulary items in (307), then, are deterministically inserted after spell-out of syntactic structure. This approach, if applied to colloquial Indonesian, leaves the variability of meN- unaddressed. What I propose is that the variable rule in (306) may be applied after vocabulary insertion; the rule does not target the null form, but it does target the overt form, which can be deleted. Since the rule in (306) is variably applied by individual speakers, it is subject to a variety of potential factors that determine its (probabilistic) application, including: differences between speakers, including regional and sociolinguistic differences (interspeaker variation); formality, register and stylistic variation (intraspeaker variation); phonological and prosodic factors such as speech rate; and quantitative distribution that defines what is “conventional usage” in Indonesian. These factors are non-deterministic, so that deletion or non-deletion of meN-/ber- has no consequences for grammaticality. I now return to some properties that have been attributed to meN- or ber- in the literature, but which are not deterministic (as demonstrated by counter-examples already presented in the sections above). I argue that these non-deterministic factors do indeed affect meN- and/or ber-; but their effect has to do with probabilistic application of a variable rule. In other words, these factors determine whether meN-/ber- has a tendency to occur overtly or not. Consider the observation that semantically transitive verbs occur with meN- if the object is not expressed (Fortin 2006). I have already suggested that this is a non-deterministic property, based on the grammaticality of (308) in colloquial Indonesian: 106

If the bare verb is taken as a probabilistic tendency, two potential factors are predicted to affect the rate of deletion of meN- in this example. The prefix is deleted more frequently when an object is present; the prefix is also deleted more frequently in informal contexts. In both cases, the correlation between transitivity and meN- is indirect, but transitivity is not a deterministic factor. Aspectual semantics have also been previously discussed as a non-deterministic factor for meN-. Soh and Nomoto (2009, 2015) proposed that meN- is a progressive aspectual marker, given a contrast in interpretation between the two sentences below:

I have suggested that the aspectual meaning is not obligatory, but a tendency. Variable deletion also accounts for this: meN- is deleted less often when the sentence has a progressive aspect; alternately, meN- is deleted more frequently with punctual verbs or non-progressive aspect. Finally, I also noted that a number of authors claim that meN-prefixed verbs contrast with bare verbs in their discourse-pragmatic functions (Wallace 1979; Kana 1983; Kaswanti Purwo 1989; Voskuil 1996). Since neither meN- nor the bare form is obligatory in any of these contexts, these cannot be deterministic factors. Rather, information structure, the organization of discourse and other extra-syntactic factors affect the probabilistic rate of deletion. For example, following observations in Kaswanti Purwo 1989, meN- is less frequently deleted in the following contexts: 3 person narration, clauses that provide background information, in direct speech to an addressee, and in the presence of a modal. 107

3.5.2. Other consequences of variable rule application Variable application of a deletion rule also provides a new perspective on some of the unpredictable aspects of meN-/ber- distribution. In this section I suggest that the variable deletion rule is applied at different rates for different roots, and that speakers learn overall rates of deletion for a particular root, as part of their language capacity. Below, I present idiosyncratic verbs that require meN- or ber-, and idiosyncratic verbs that never take either prefix. The following lists are representative of the diversity in each set, but are not exhaustive.

One interesting property that is shared among the verbs in (312) is that they are among the most frequently occurring in speech. These frequent verbs, then, implement the deletion rule at a maximum rate. Both lists include intransitive and transitive verbs. These are idiosyncratic in the sense that 15

In very formal Indonesian, berdatang is used as a polite quotative, as when a royal person or deity speaks.

109

they do not form any pattern, and must be learned. (Some authors, e.g. Wallace (1979) have attempted to categorize these roots according to semantic class, with the result that some categories have only 1-2 verbs.) The morphology on these roots appears to be deterministic: either they must occur with meN/ber-, or they must occur bare. However, I suggest that these idiosyncratic verbs are also a product of the variable rule. Consider the possibility that with some roots, the deletion rule is applied so infrequently that meN-/ber- almost always occur; conversely, with other roots, the deletion rule is applied at a near-ceiling rate, so that the verb almost always appears without meN-/ber-. If an Indonesian speaker never hears a certain verb without meN-/ber-, then the speaker learns that the deletion rule is rarely or never applied. Verbs that never occur with meN-/ber- are likewise learned as verbs that always apply the deletion rule. The suggestion that I make is that these are judged to require or disallow the prefix because rates of variable deletion are learned as part of conventional usage. Excursus: Wh-agreement applies to all verbs One puzzling property of the verbs in (311) is that although they cannot occur with meN- alone or ber- alone,16 most can occur with meN- and an applicative suffix (-kan or -i):

(313)

Bare verbs that can be affixed with both meN- and -kan/-i mem-bangun-kan meny-[s]elesai-kan men-[t]inggal-kan

‘rouse (someone)’ ‘finish (something)’ ‘leave behind’

men-duduk-i

‘occupy’

menge-tahu-i

‘discover, ascertain’

me-masuk-i

‘enter into a space’

men-cinta-i

‘love’

16 When tinggal ‘stay, live’ is affixed with meN- its meaning is changed, ‘die.’ When the root cinta ‘love’ occurs with ber- its meaning is also changed, ‘have sex.’

110

meny-[s]uka-i

‘like’

The affixation does not have a predictable effect; in some cases, it is simply a change in transitivity (membangunkan, menyelesaikan, meninggalkan). For other roots, a related meaning results from affixation (menduduki, mengetahui, memasuki). The verbs cinta and suka are exceptions in that their affixed forms are not distinct from their bare forms, either syntactically or semantically. Since some verbs never occur with the prefix meN-, and many more only optionally occur with meN-, the question arises whether wh-agreement still applies if the form of the verb after movement has not changed (in other words, the verb appears bare both before and after A-bar movement). I argue that wh-movement applies in all cases of A-bar movement. We have already seen that the prefix is optional with many roots. With the roots below, meNis required in clauses without extraction:

Many of the verbs that show this pattern (i.e. do not allow optional deletion of meN- in basic clauses) are those that take the suffix -i (menyukai, merangkai, menggilai). The function of this suffix is debated in the literature. It has been called a locative applicative, or a semantically empty morpheme that is required for well-formedness. For some authors, the fact that suka-i, rangka-i and gila-i are not possible in (320-322) has been taken to mean that the voice morpheme is the circumfix meN-i). Wh-agreement patterns suggest that this view is not correct, or at least that meN- and -i are separate morphemes: these roots must occur with both meN- and -i when there is no extraction, yet in case of object extraction, meN- does not occur. The examples above show that morphological wh-agreement does not depend on whether the surface form of the verb may occur with meN-; these are independent factors in Indonesian and the one does not depend on the other. Wh-agreement applies to all verbs, including those that optionally occur with meN-/ber- and those that never occur with meN-/ber-. Returning to idiosyncratic roots, I have suggested that individual roots, which require meNor ber- to be well-formed, do not belong to the category of deterministic conditions. Rather, rates 17

The bare roots gila and rangka can occur as adjective ‘crazy’ and noun ‘order, frame’ respectively.

112

of variable deletion are learned by speakers, so that with certain roots the prefix is always deleted or never deleted. One prediction of this view is that different speakers may have learned different rates of deletion for certain roots; for a particular root, one speaker may have a high rate of meN-/berdeletion, while another speaker never deletes meN-/ber-. This prediction is confirmed by conflicting judgments from consultants about the optionality of meN- and ber- with the roots listed below. The meN- form is always accepted, but not all consultants accept the bare form; this is evidence that the optionality of these prefixes arises from deletion. The forms that were only accepted by some consultants are marked with %.

Furthermore, for some of the roots in (324), consultants indicated that they were not certain whether the bare form was possible or not. This, too, is consistent with a variable deletion rule that may be applied 100 percent of the time for selected roots. Since I have already shown that A-bar movement requires a bare verb, the question arises what effect A-bar movement will have, when crossing over verbs that always appear with meN/ber- (311) and verbs for which consultants disagreed or were uncertain about (324). First, the 113

examples below show A-movement with verbs that must occur with meN-:18

These sentences show that verbs which usually require meN-/ber- still occur bare in case of Abar movement. This provides a contrast between a deterministic condition for meN-/ber- realization (morphological wh-agreement) and a non-deterministic operation (variable deletion). Even for verbs that are judged ill-formed without meN-/ber-, these must occur as bare verbs in case of A-bar movement. Unsurprisingly, for verbs that speakers disagree about, these verbs must also occur bare in case of A-bar movement: 18

No verbs that require ber- are transitive, so A-movement does not occur. Change of state verbs, which require meN-, are also intransitive.

I conclude the reason that idiosyncratic verbs always occur with meN-/ber- or without meN/ber- is that the variable deletion rule is applied 100 percent of the time for some roots, and never applied for other roots. Speakers learn overall rates of deletion, as well as root-specific rates of deletion. This is consistent with the fact that the roots which always occur bare (312) are among the most common in the language; frequent input helps speakers learn that the deletion rule is always applied and the bare form occurs. Extra-syntactic factors (e.g. verb frequency and rates of deletion) are responsible for the contrast between verbs that allow optional meN- and ber-, and those that do not. In addition to the intraspeaker variability shown by these prefixes, there is some degree of interspeaker variability with regard to which roots may occur without meN-, and some roots for which speakers themselves have uncertain judgments. This too falls out from different rates of deletion for individual verbs.

115

3.6. Chapter summary The overall thesis that I have advanced in this chapter is that the distribution of these functional morphemes in Indonesian can only be accounted for with a combination of 1) semantico-syntactic factors that affect the realization of these morphemes in a deterministic way, as well as 2) extrasyntactic factors that influence a post-syntactic variable deletion rule, such that application of the rule is probabilistic rather than deterministic. I demonstrated that the distinction between deterministic and non-deterministic factors is an important one, not only to capture the realization of meN- and ber-, but also for analyses of their respective functions. I have attempted to show that this approach makes sense of a number of previously observed properties of meN- and ber-. Additionally, this chapter extends wh-agreement to the verbal domain. The well-known correlation between nominal extraction and null verbal morphology is re-framed here as morphological wh-agreement resulting from phase-based successive cyclic movement. I also argue against the assumption that A movement has the same effect on verbal morphology: by demonstrating that Object voice clauses independently require null verbal morphology, I showed that A-movement of the Theme to subject position does not cause meN- to occur as a null morpheme.

116

CHAPTER 4 Possessor Extraction 4.1. Introduction 4.1.1. Background In this chapter I discuss possessor sub-extraction in Indonesian, with additional data showing possessor movement in Javanese and Madurese.1 I show that a nominal possessor can be extracted from a possessive DP via A-bar movement, and surface as a clefted element at the left periphery of the clause, as in (2).

The suffix -nya is optional in possessive DPs (1), but A-bar movement requires -nya to occur on the possessum that remains in situ (2). I argue that pronunciation of -nya in these cases is a type of wh-agreement, which is a morphological reflex of A-bar movement. This chapter, then, extends the wh-agreement analysis that is argued for throughout this thesis: wh-agreement on complementizers is discussed in Chapter 2, and wh-agreement on verbs is discussed in Chapter 3. In this chapter I argue that wh-agreement also occurs in the nominal domain, when possessors are extracted from the DP. Morphology marking wh-agreement within the DP is cross-linguistically unusual. In Chapters 2 and 3 I have discussed wh-agreement in relation to complementizers and verbal prefixes, respectively, which is consistent with the cross-linguistic generalization that morphological whagreement occurs in these two domains. Zaenen (1983) makes the claim that other domains do not 1

The variety of Indonesian discussed in this chapter is that of educated speakers living in urban areas East Java; some of these speakers were raised in other areas but attended university in East Java and use Indonesian on a daily basis. One of my consultants speaks only Indonesian as a first language; all other consultants also speak Javanese or Madurese. My Madurese consultants are from Bangkalan and Jember; however, all Madurese data cited in this paper are from the Bangkalan (western) variety. My Javanese consultants are from also from East Java.

According to Zaenen, wh-agreement falls under a wider set of phenomena that she calls syntactic binding. Wh-agreement is marked on complementizers and verbs because these fall within the “binding domain,” which is defined as projections that dominate a bindee but not the binder. I argue in this chapter that possessor extraction in Indonesian instantiates wh-agreement within the DP domain: when a possessor undergoes successive cyclic A-bar movement, it must escape its DP by movement through the specifier of DP. The result of this movement is obligatory pronunciation of D, which is realized as a suffix on the possessum. The Indonesian data, then, provides a pattern of wh-agreement that suggests Zaenen’s generalization is incomplete, and that DPs can also show morphological reflexes of A-bar (wh-) movement. Broadly speaking, possessor sub-extraction provides support for A-bar movement through the edge of DP, with movement proceeding cyclically via syntactic phases. This suggests that D is a phase head in Indonesian, in addition to phase heads Voice and C. In addition, long-distance extraction in Indonesian shows another cross-linguistically unusual pattern: all complementizers crossed by movement must show wh-agreement, but the highest C is marked differently than intermediate C (see Chapter 2). Marking A-bar movement through DP with the suffix -nya also means that movement through DP is marked differently than movement through clauses. 4.1.2. Internal and external possession In this chapter I present data showing both internal and external possession. When an overt possessor occurs within a possessive DP as in (4), I refer to this as internal possession. When the possessor occurs outside of the possessive DP containing the possessum with which it has a possession relation, as in (5), this is a type of external possession:

Siapa yang adik baca [buku-nya ]? who C.Foc younger.sibling read book-D ‘Who is it that little brother is reading (her) book?’ In other languages, many cases of external possession have been analyzed as possessor rais-

ing or possessor ascension (see Keenan 1972; Perlmutter and Postal 1983; Baker 1999; Landau 1999; Payne and Barshi 1999; Deal 2013a,b for various approaches.) In many of these cases, the external possessor appears in an A position (and is marked for Case in this position). In contrast, the type of external possesion that I discuss in this chapter is distinct from possessor raising. Sentences such as (5) are derived by A-bar movement of the possessor, and the possessor always occurs in an A-bar position rather than an A position. I argue that possessor extraction in Indonesian is subject to the same principles and constraints that apply to A-bar movement of other nominals in this language. This type of possessor movement is also discussed in Ross 1986; Szabolcsi 1992; Coon 2009; Gavruseva 2000 for various languages. To my knowledge however, possessor extraction has not been analyzed in Indonesian and its closely related languages.2 Although I describe the DP-internal arguments as “possessum” and “possessor,” a broad range of semantic relations are possible in this genitive construction, including part-whole, entityorigin and container-content. The arguments may also be alienable or inalienable, concrete or abstract: (6)

tangan-ku hand-1s ‘my hand’

(7)

pinggir jalan edge road ‘the side of the road’

(8)

Gubernur Jawa Timur governor Java east

2

Much of this chapter appears in an earlier form in Jeoung (to appear).

In the following discussion, I present an analysis in which syntactic and morphological operations apply across this type of construction without making a distinction among these relations. The “possessor” in possessor extraction, then, is defined structurally, as a DP argument generated in the specifier of an NP (see Section 4.4.1). 4.1.3. Addressing variability in -nya A key component of my analysis is to re-analyze the suffix -nya in light of its variable pronunciation in internal possession, and to extend this understanding to the obligatory nature of -nya in cases of possessor extraction. The analysis relies on data from the variety of colloquial Indonesian used in everyday situations, which often deviates from formal or Standard Indonesian. By formal Indonesian I refer to language that is spoken in official and professional settings, while Standard Indonesian is the prescriptive variety taught in schools and also used in writing. Colloquial Indonesian deviates from formal and Standard Indonesian in various ways, although speakers often switch between these depending on pragmatic context. In Standard Indonesian, possessive DPs with an overt internal possessor do not occur with the suffix -nya on the possessum:

The nature and extent of this variability in the possessive suffix -nya has not yet been studied and is not well defined. However, for my consultants, the sentences above are possible both with and without -nya, and I find no semantic difference resulting from pronunciation of -nya in these examples (see further discussion in Section 4.3.3). Anecdotally, my consultants report that some speakers frequently use the suffix -nya with internal possession, while other speakers rarely do (i.e., except for contexts in which it is required). It is possible that idiosyncratic usage or sociolinguistic factors (such as age, geography or influence from other languages) determine the variable expression of -nya. Crucially however, all consultants agreed that the grammaticality of (11-13) was not affected by (non-)pronunciation of -nya. I proceed with the assumption that -nya is an optional morpheme that occurs in internal possession. In anticipation of the analysis below, -nya in possessive DPs is glossed as the functional head D. 4.1.4. Outline of chapter In Section 4.2 I present possessor extraction patterns in Indonesian, focusing on the possibility of sub-extraction from subject position, object position and other positions within the clause. These patterns support an analysis in which the possessor undergoes successive-cyclic A-bar movement before landing in its surface position at the edge of the clause. I also include possessor extraction data from two related languages of Indonesia, Javanese and Madurese, which support the analysis proposed for Indonesian. In Section 4.3 I discuss the status of the suffix -nya in possessive DPs. I argue that -nya is not a 3 pronoun in possessives, but rather the pronunciation of the head D, which 121

is a type of agreement with a possessor. The interaction of definiteness and pronunciation of -nya is also discussed. Section 4.4 presents a derivational analysis for possessor extraction, including movement through the edge of DP and VoiceP, driven by the edge feature [EPP-D]. The implications of possessor extraction are discussion in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 concludes.

4.2. Patterns of possessor extraction in Indonesian Argument extraction in Indonesian is a well-studied topic, and it is well known that subjects in Indonesian may be freely extracted, while extraction of arguments that begin lower than Voice/v require a null prefix instead of the active prefix meN- (Saddy 1991; Voskuil 1996, 2000; Cole and Hermon 2005; Aldridge 2008; Arka and Manning 2008; Cole et al. 2008b; Fortin 2009; Davies 2010; Yanti 2010; Sato 2012). The goal of the discussion in this section is to show that this generalization profitably extends to a previously overlooked set of nominals: possessors. When a possessive DP is in subject position, the possessor may be sub-extracted from its DP and appear in an A-bar position at the left edge of the clause. This movement is without consequences for verbal morphology. However, sub-extraction of a possessor originating in a lower argument requires a null prefix on the verb instead of the active prefix meN-. I argue that this pattern shows that possessors undergo movement in the same way that verbal arguments do, via successive-cyclic A-bar movement.3 I argue that base generation of the possessor in a high position does not account for the extraction patterns observed in Indonesian, as well as similar patterns in related languages such as Javanese and Madurese. 4.2.1. Sub-extraction of subject possessors I begin with possessor sub-extraction from the position of grammatical subjects. The fact that possessors can escape from a subject in Indonesian has previously been noted by Musgrave (2001) and Sneddon et al. (2012). In (14), the possessive DP occurs in the canonical preverbal position of grammatical subjects. This possessive DP may undergo A-bar movement to the left edge of the clause, followed by yang (15). The possessor may also be extracted alone as in (16-17), in which case the possessum remains in situ, with the obligatory suffix -nya. 3

Sub-extraction from ditransitive arguments appears to be an exception; see Section 4.2.4.

di-rata-kan kemarin? Siapa yang rumah-nya PV-flat-Appl yesterday who C.Foc house-D ‘Who is it that their house was destroyed yesterday?’

Note that the extracted possessor can be a lexical possessor such as orang ‘person’ (16) or the wh possessor siapa ‘who’ (17). Extracted wh possessors are usually human. In other words, siapa ‘who’ may be sub-extracted, but apa ‘what’ resists sub-extraction as illustrated in (19). However, pied piping of the wh phrase makes the question acceptable (20). Lexical possessors, on the other hand, are not sensitive to a human/non-human distinction, so the head of a relative clause can be a non-human possessor, as in (21). (18)

As previously mentioned, possessor extraction is possible for DPs with a range of semantic relations, i.e. inalienability and affectedness are not required. Neither is possessor extraction dependent 123

on thematic role. (14-21) are passive clauses in which the possessor extracts from a Theme in subject position, but possessors may also extract from Agents and Experiencers in active clauses, as illustrated in examples below. Grammatical subjects in Indonesian are marked as definite or specific, otherwise they are interpreted as generic (Sneddon et al. 2012). This rules out single question words and indefinites in subject position:4

4 Cole et al. (2005) suggest that the inability of wh phrases to occur in subject position arises from the interaction of syntax and information structure; they also report variation in this requirement in Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian.

124

In contrast to the definite possessors Melly and orang itu, the generic noun oreng ‘person’ and the wh phrase siapa ‘who’ cannot occur as possessors in subject position. The definiteness requirement means that a subject with a wh-possessor cannot be left in-situ; a wh possessor forces either subject extraction (29) or possessor sub-extraction (30).

4.2.2. Sub-extraction of object possessors Next I turn to possessive DPs in object position. I show that A-bar movement of the possessor over an active verb is only possible with special morphology on the verb; this morphological requirement is the same for arguments extracted from object position. For a possessive DP that is the internal argument in a transitive clause, it may be extracted as in (32). Its possessor may also be subextracted (33).

In both cases of extraction, the active voice prefix meN- cannot occur on the verb. Instead, the verb baca must occur in its “bare form,” with no active voice morphology. Note that this requirement applies only to A-bar movement: in passive clauses, A-movement of the internal argument over the

125

verb does not require null voice morphology. Rather, the verb occurs with the passive prefix di- (see examples 14-17). This morphological requiremement for object extraction contrasts with subject extraction from the same clause, which is well-formed with the prefix meN-.5

(34)

Siapa yang mem-baca buku gadis itu? who C.Foc AV-read book girl that ‘Who is it that is reading the girls book?’

This is consistent with the general pattern of argument extraction in Indonesian: the active prefix meN- is disallowed when extraction crosses the verb. This means that in situ object questions are compatible with active voice morphology on the verb, including an in situ wh possessor:

(35-36) are interpreted as matrix questions, but since overt movement across the verb has not applied, no special requirement is placed on verbal morphology. Note that unlike subject arguments, non-subjects are not required to be definite or specific in Indonesian. Thus wh-possessors and generic possessors are licit in object position. 4.2.3. Long distance sub-extraction As discussed in Chapter 2, DPs may undergo long distance extraction in Indonesian. This predicts that A-bar movement will be possible for possessors as well. However, when A-bar movement crosses more than one clause boundary, the sentence is 5

In this chapter I do not detail the optional realization of meN- in clauses without A-bar movement, a topic that is discussed in Chapter 3. Verbs that are shown with the active prefix meN- may sometimes occur without it; for example, 34 is grammatical with the bare verb baca, but the availability of the prefix contrasts with cases of A-bar movement over the verb, in which meN- is always disallowed, as in (32-33).

126

sometimes judged unnatural or degraded; this is not particular to possessors, but true of argument extraction in general. Acceptability improves for many speakers if the matrix subject is a 1 or 2 pronoun. The following illustrates long distance extraction of a possessor, with a 1 and 2 pronouns as matrix subject:

The matrix verb in (38) must occur in its bare form kira, since the possessor begins as the object of the embedded clause and crosses this verb. In (39) however, the wh possessor moves to an intermediate position at the left edge of the embedded clause; it has not crossed the matrix verb, which may occur with the active prefix meN-. This pattern demonstrates that it is overt movement over the verb that requires null morphology on the active verb, and that this requirement applies iteratively in long distance movement.6 To summarize the discussion thus far, previous literature has already established the correlation between obligatory null voice morphology in active clauses and extraction from object position: in active transitive clauses in Indonesian, a bare verb is obligatory with DP extraction from object position, but not subject position. The data presented here show that the pattern also applies to the sub-extraction of possessors. A bare verb is obligatory when the external possessor is associated with the possessum in object position, but not when associated with a subject possessum. This supports a movement analysis for possessors that occur on the left periphery of the sentence. I assume that the same mechanism for A-bar movement of nominal arguments is also the strategy used for 6

In order to simplify the discussion, I have not included the optional complementizer bahwa in (37) and the obligatory null C in (38). See Chapter 2 for discussion.

127

possessor movement. 4.2.4. Sub-extraction from other positions In this section I examine possessor extraction from other argument positions in the clause, namely adjuncts and ditransitives. Adjuncts are islands for A-bar movement in Indonesian. For instance, although PP adjuncts can occur in various positions in the clause, they cannot be clefted with the morpheme yang, which is a property of A-bar movement:

On the other hand, extraction of the lower argument (bunga ‘flower’) is not possible.7 Since the ability of an argument to undergo extraction is correlated with the possibility of possessor sub-extraction from the same position, this predicts that possessor will be able to extract from a ditransitive object. Contrary to expectation however, a possessor cannot be sub-extracted from a Beneficiary, Goal or Recipient:

Extraction is not possible even when the verb does not bear the active voice prefix. It appears therefore that ditransitive objects are an exception to the previously noted correlation, between the extractability of a subject or monotransitive object and the extractability of its possessor. However, the ditransitive case does not challenge the previous generalization that when A-bar movement occurs over an active verb, verbal morphology must mark the movement. It is not clear at this point why the possessor cannot extract from this position. One possible 7

This contrasts with the data reported in Sato 2012 for formal/Standard Indonesian and Kendal Javanese. See his examples (18b, 19b) in which the Theme can be extracted over the Goal/ Recipient; this is not grammatical for the Indonesian and Javanese speakers that I consulted. The pattern is the same with give-type ditransitives (cf. Kaswanti Purwo (1995)).

129

explanation is that thematic specifiers in these languages may resist sub-extraction. Several properties make the applicative object position (which I assume to be the specifier of ApplP) similar to the base position of external arguments (SpecVoiceP) (cf. Pylkkanen 2002; Harley 2013; Legate 2014). First, SpecApplP and SpecVoiceP are both thematic positions, in contrast to the derived subject position, SpecIP (or SpecTP). A DP argument may move out of its thematic position: the external argument moves to SpecIP in active clauses, and the applicative object raises to SpecIP in a passive ditransitive clause (see Kaswanti Purwo 1995; Son and Cole 2008 for discussion of ditransitive constructions in Indonesian). The DP argument may also remain in situ, in its thematic position: in Object voice the external argument remains in SpecVoiceP and a Theme becomes grammatical subject (Guilfoyle et al. 1992; Cole et al. 2008a; Legate 2014). Crucially, when the external argument remains in SpecVoiceP in Object voice, it does not allow movement (sub-extraction) from within the DP: Musgrave (2001) shows that this argument cannot launch floating quantifiers in Indonesian. (See also Legate 2014 for the impossibility of floating quantifiers from an Agent in Acehnese Object voice; and Arka 2003 for similar observations in Balinese). An applicative object that remains in situ likewise disallows movement of its possessor. If this explanation is on the right track, possessor sub-extraction from ditransitives is ruled out for an independent reason, that thematic specifiers disallow sub-extraction. 4.2.5. Interim summary To summarize the discussion until this point, I have shown that the properties of A-bar extraction in Indonesian also apply to possessor extraction. Null verbal morphology is required for object extraction over an active verb, and also for possessor sub-extraction from objects. No such requirement is placed on subject extraction or sub-extraction. I take this as evidence that possessors at the left periphery of the clause are not base generated in their surface positions, but undergo successive-cyclic A-bar movement, like verbal arguments. Let us briefly consider an alternate analysis in which the possessor is base-generated in its surface position at the left periphery. This approach faces several challenges. First, it must stipulate that there is an asymmetry between subjects and non-subjects. This approach fails to explain

130

why a high base-generated possessor requires a null active voice prefix when the possessum is the object, but not when the possessum is the grammatical subject. By contrast, the pattern is explained under the present analysis: A-bar movement of a possessor is subject to the same constraints as A-bar movement of an argument. Given that subjects may be freely extracted in Indonesian, but objects may be extracted only with null active voice morphology, it follows that the possessors of these arguments show the same pattern. This is consistent with much previous work in Indonesian languages that observes obligatory null verbal morphology as indicative of A-bar movement of the internal object (Voskuil 2000; Cole and Hermon 2005; Aldridge 2008; Cole et al. 2008b; Fortin 2009; Davies 2010; Yanti 2010; Sato 2012; Jeoung 2017, among others). The possessor also obligatorily occurs with the morpheme yang, which I have argued elsewhere is required in all cases of A-bar extraction of nominals. Finally, a base-generated possessor should not be sensitive to islands, since no syntactic movement occurs. There is no obvious reason why the possessum could not occur within syntactic islands such as adjuncts, or as a ditransitive argument. 4.2.6. Possessor extraction in related languages Possessor sub-extraction is also possible in two languages closely related to Indonesian, Madurese and Javanese. These languages have DP-internal structure parallel to Indonesian, and a voice system similar to that of Indonesian (for discussion of Indonesian-type languages, particularly in contrast to Philippine-type languages, see Arka 2002; Himmelmann 2002; Cole et al. 2008a; Blust 2013). In this section I show that possessors in Javanese and Madurese extract via A-bar movement. Similar to Indonesian, these languages show an asymmetry between subjects and non-subjects with regard to the verbal morphology required for extraction. Additionally, a split between extraction patterns in two registers in Madurese further supports the present movement analysis for possessors. Like Indonesian, Javanese and Madurese are SVO languages. Nominals that undergo A-bar movement appear at the left edge of the clause:

A-bar movement is the strategy used for moved-wh questions as well as relatives. The extracted nominal is the head of a relative or cleft, and the nominal must be followed by the morpheme sing (Javanese) or se (Madurese), which separates it from the rest of the clause.8 Subject extraction is shown below for each language, followed by possessor sub-extraction from subject position, with the possessum remaining in situ in subject position. Like Indonesian, the extracted possessor may either be a wh possessor or a lexical possessor.

For extraction of an object from an active transitive clause, the pattern in Javanese is similar to that of Indonesian. Object extraction requires a bare verb, without the active voice prefix N-.9 Either the possessive DP or the possessor may be extracted:

An unusual fact about Madurese is that A-bar movement in the familiar register is more restricted than in the polite register (Jeoung 2017). Only subjects can undergo A-bar movement in the familiar register, but in the polite register, both subject (57b) and object (57d) extraction are possible:

Consistent with Indonesian and Javanese, extraction from object position requires the bare form of the verb in (57d). The availability of both subject and object extraction in the polite register also 134

predicts that possessors will be able to sub-extract from both positions. This prediction is also borne out: (58)

Also predicted is the fact that the verbal morphology is required to be bare when the external possessor is associated with the object in (58b). Given that subjects may be freely extracted in Indonesian, Javanese and polite Madurese, but objects may be extracted only with null active voice morphology, it follows that the possessors of these arguments show the same pattern. Similarly, subjects and their possessors may be extracted in familiar Madurese, but objects and their possessors may not. Like other Indonesian languages, obligatory null verbal morphology is required when the internal object undergoes A-bar movement (Saddy 1991; Voskuil 1996, 2000; Cole and Hermon 2005; Aldridge 2008; Arka and Manning 2008; Cole et al. 2008a; Sato 2008a; Davies 2010; Yanti 2010; Legate 2012, 2014; Jeoung 2017; among others.) DP-internal morphology in Javanese and Madurese also parallels that in Indonesian. The possessum is suffixed with -ne in Javanese, -Nah in familiar Madurese and -epon in polite Madurese, as illustrated below. This suffix is obligatory in all possessive DPs, including internal possession (a-examples below), with non-overt possessors (b-examples) and with possessor extraction as discussed previously (c-examples). (59)

Also parallel to Indonesian -nya, Javanese -ne and Madurese -Nah/-epon also occur as the definite morpheme suffixed to nouns, as indicated by the glosses in (59b, 60b, 61b). The morphology of Indonesian possessive DPs differs only in that the (-nya) is optional in internal possession; otherwise, -nya is required. In the following section, I propose to treat the possessive suffix -nya on par with Javanese -ne and Madurese -Nah/-epon, which are not pronominal but rather a type of possessor agreement.

136

4.3. The suffix -nya 4.3.1. -Nya as possessor agreement I now turn to the status of the Indonesian suffix -nya, which occurs in both possessive contexts and non-possessive contexts. It is clear that -nya serves several differents functions in non-possessive contexts. I briefly describe some of these below, but I do not attempt to provide an analysis of all functions of -nya. Here I focus on the status of -nya only in possessive DPs. -Nya occurs in three types of possessive DPs :

As previously mentioned, possessor extraction has not been studied in depth for Indonesian or closely related languages, but possessive DPs are mentioned in previous work on Indonesian. In internal possession (62), with an overt possessor that has not been extracted, previous authors have treated optional -nya as a linker between possessum and possessor, although no analysis has been proposed for the structural position of this linker (e.g. see Sneddon et al. 2012). When the possessor is not overt as in (63), -nya is most commonly treated as a 3 singular possessive pronoun; this leads to the analysis of -nya as a resumptive pronoun in cases of extraction such as (64) (Voskuil 2000; Musgrave 2001; Chung 2008).

137

I depart from the view that -nya is a 3 singular possessive pronoun in (63), and by extension, a resumptive pronoun in (64). One difficulty of the pronominal analysis is that it requires two distinct -nya morphemes, even though they occur in the same position in (62-64). -Nya is assumed to be a pronoun in cases without an overt possessor (63-64), but this assumption cannot be extended to cases in which an overt possessor is present (62). In the latter case, -nya is simply said to be a different morpheme, i.e. a possessive linker. However, identity in form and distribution suggest a uniform treatment for -nya in possessive DPs. In the analysis that follows, I propose that in possessive contexts, the head D may be pronounced as -nya, which is realized as a suffix on the head noun (possessum). The pronunciation of D is a type of agreement with the possessor: when an overt possessor occurs (internal possession), possessor agreement is optional, as seen in (62). When the possessor is pro, possessor agreement is obligatory (63). When the possessor undergoes A-bar movement (64), agreement in the form of -nya is also required. Several pieces of evidence support the analysis of -nya in possessive DPs as pronunciation of D rather than a pronoun: (i) The definite marker -nya and possessive -nya occur in the same position, on the head noun. (ii) -Nya can co-occur with lexical and pronominal possessors within possessive DPs. This is unexplained if -nya is a pronoun. (iii) -Nya is obligatory in possessor extraction, not only with 3 person arguments, but also with 1 or 2 person arguments. (iv) -Nya cannot occur as a resumptive element in general (non-possessive) argument extraction. I discuss each of these in turn. First, the linear position of possessive -nya is the same as that of the definite morpheme -nya. (65) is a non-possessive context in which -nya marks only definiteness on the subject:

(65) { Tempat-nya / Tempat itu } bagus buat foto-foto. place-D place that good make photo-Red ‘The place was good for photos.’ Definiteness may be marked on the noun with -nya, or with the demonstrative itu.10 Recall that 10 Itu has come to function as a definite morpheme in Indonesian, and can be bleached of deictic or demonstrative meaning...

138

subjects in Indonesian must be definite or specific, so the subject in (65) is ill-formed without -nya or itu. Turning to possessive DPs, the possessum suffixed with -nya is identical to definite DPs. Compare (65) with the possessive contexts below: (66)

Tempat(-nya) Tono bagus buat foto-foto. place-D Tono good make photo-Red ‘Tono’s place is good for photos.’

(67)

Tono pikir tempat-nya bagus buat foto-foto. Tono think place-D good make photo-Red ‘Tono thinks his place is good for photos.’

The identity of form and position between the definite suffix and the possessive suffix suggests that these are both pronunciations of the same functional element, which I take to be the head D. Furthermore, a limited set of modifiers can occur between N and -nya; this set remains constant whether the context is definiteness or possession. Single modifiers, including those denoting size, quality, material or origin, may occur between N and -nya, interpreted either as a definite or a possessive. (68)

Complex modifiers such as besar dan mewah ‘big and facy’ and multiple adjectives such as sutera panjang ‘long silk’ cannot occur inside -nya. In definite contexts, these can occur with the demonstrative itu. This pattern is striking because the distribution of definite -nya differs from that of demonstrative itu (which always occurs in final linear position), yet definite -nya and possessive -nya share the same distribution. A second piece of evidence that argues against -nya as a pronoun is that it can co-occur with pronominal possessors. Consider the range of possessive DPs shown with various possessors in Table 4.11,12

Table 4: Possessive DPs with possessum rumah ‘house’ The fourth column illustrates the optional use of -nya between possessum and possessor in colloquial Indonesian. In standard (prescriptive) Indonesian, possessive DPs with overt possessors do not occur with -nya (cf. Sneddon et al. 2012). However, for my educated Indonesian consultants from 11 12

The 1 singular clitic ku can occur as enclitic or proclitic. There is variation in whether rumah-nya can be used for 3 plural

140

the island of Java, -nya may optionally occur with an overt internal possessor, and this is reported to be common in speech. The co-occurrence of -nya with an overt possessor is reported to be more frequent in emphatic contexts or affective discourse styles, for example, when the speaker is angry. However, this not a strict requirement, as illustrated in the examples below, where -nya co-occurs with an overt possessor in a non-emphatic context: (70)

I conclude then, that -nya may optionally occur with an overt internal possessor, and that this variability depends on stylistic or idiosyncratic usage. (I return shortly to the question of whether -nya always encodes definiteness.) Table 4 departs from previous descriptions of -nya in another significant way. Previous authors consider rumah-nya to be the cliticized variant of rumah dia ‘his/her house’ or rumah mereka ‘their house.’ Under the present analysis however, rumah-nya contains no overt possessor, but rather a pro possessor (see the last row of Table 4). Since Indonesian is a pro-drop language that allows null arguments when they are understood within discourse context, it is reasonable to assume a pro possessor, which occurs when the possessor is already understood or has been previously mentioned. Pro possessors require agreement on the possessum in the form of -nya. Accordingly, 3 person pronouns dia and mereka do not have a corresponding possessive clitic form at all. Rather, the pro possessor is interpreted as 3 person by default, rendering ‘his/her/their house’ as possible readings for rumah-nya. In short, -nya may occur with all possessors across the forms in Table 4, which is explained if there is a single -nya morpheme that is optional in possessive contexts. This analysis accounts for the facts in a straightforward way, rather than positing two -nya morphemes that occur in the same position in possessive DPs. 141

A third piece of evidence that possessive -nya is not pronominal comes from possessor extraction, which results in obligatory -nya (see last column of Table 4). Any possessor that is extracted requires -nya on the possessum, regardless of the type of DP (lexical possessor, wh phrase) and person/number features:

I should note that extraction of a pronominal possessor (as in 72) is judged to be awkward by some consultants, although no more so for a 1 or 2 possessor than for a 3 possessor. All consultants preferred to extract the possessive DP as in (73), with intonational stress on the pronoun; this is reported to be more common than pronoun extraction (72). However, when a context is presented that forces a pronominal possessor to be focused and extracted as in (72), then the only acceptable suffix on the possessum is -nya; this judgment was shared by all consultants. The traditional view, which treats -nya as a 3 person resumptive pronoun, does not explain the fact that -nya is compatible with the extraction of 1 and 2 person arguments in (72). Furthermore, if -nya is a resumptive 3 pronoun, then this predicts that the extraction of 1 or 2 person arguments will occur with a resumptive pronoun as well. However, 1 or 2 resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical with possessor extraction:

This demonstrates that in possessor extraction, the obligatory suffix -nya does not carry phi-features, 142

but rather marks the extraction of any possessor out of the DP. This pattern also supports an analysis of -nya as an instance of wh-agreement. One of the properties of wh-agreement is that it does not register DP-internal features of the moved argument, i.e. phi-features (Reintges et al. 2006). Finally, if the suffix -nya in possessor extraction is a 3 person pronoun that occurs resumptively, this predicts that -nya will occur resumptively in general (non-possessive) argument extraction. However, this is impossible:

(76-77) show that -nya only occurs with possessor extraction, not general argument extraction. It is worth noting here that this fact does not fall out from a morphological requirement that -nya attach to nominal arguments only. -Nya can cliticize to other categories in Indonesian, such as transitive verbs (Musgrave 2001; Sneddon et al. 2012; also see Kroeger 2014 on Malay):

Since -nya can cliticize to verbs, that is not the source of the ungrammaticality in (76-77). The fact that -nya does not occur in the place of the moved argument in (76-77) is unexplained if it is a resumptive pronoun, but it is expected under the current analysis, because -nya is required only when an argument is sub-extracted from DP. Since there is no sub-extraction from DP in (76-77), wh-agreement in the form of -nya is not required; instead, extraction of a DP from object position as in (76-77) instead requires wh-agreement on the verb (i.e. a bare verb form). 143

4.3.2. -Nya in non-possessive contexts Having argued that -nya is not a pronoun in possessive DPs, let me briefly note some other functions of the form -nya in non-possessive contexts. In the examples below, I gloss -nya simply as NYA. We have already seen in (78-79) that -nya appears to occur in place of an object argument, and is optional embedded in the adjunct PP in (78). It is also possible for -nya to occur as a prepositional object as in (80):

The preposition oleh may be null in passive clauses, as shown in (81-82) (cf. Kroeger 2014; Jeoung and Biggs 2017). With a null P, -nya can cliticize directly to the verb in (82). It is impossible, however, for -nya to occur as a subject, even in embedded clauses introduced by an overt complementizer that might host a clitic:

Surat ini, saya yang me-nulis { -nya / itu }. letter this 1s C.Foc AV-write NYA that ‘As for this letter, it is I who wrote it.’ (modified from Voskuil 2000:207)

It is clear that this is not a case of A-bar extraction: the topic surat ini is not followed by the 144

morpheme yang, and verb is not required to occur in bare form, both of which are required with A-bar extraction. I have also shown that -nya cannot occur in the position of the gap or trace when the object is extracted (see 76-77). In (84) then, I assume the topic is base-generated in its surface position; here -nya appears to be the associate of the topic. Besides cases in which -nya appears to function as a nominal argument, -nya is also used in the formation of some adverbial expressions: (85)

ke-dua-nya KE-two- NYA ‘both of them’ I have proposed that in possessive DPs, -nya is a type of agreement with a possessor DP,

without assuming that this analysis applies to other uses of -nya. However, it seems possible that where -nya appears to replace a nominal argument, the present analysis might be extended to these cases if-nya agrees with a pro argument, just as with a pro possessor in (63). (80 and 82) are repeated below with pro arguments: (89)

Similarly, a silent pro argument in (84) and (88) could be compatible with -nya as well. However, I leave the status of -nya in non-possessive contexts for further research. 4.3.3. Definiteness effects and -nya I have proposed that -nya is a type of agreement in possessive DPs, and that pronunciation of the head D in this particular construction does not have definite semantics. This predicts that possessive -nya will not affect the definiteness of possessive DPs in constructions that require either definiteness or indefiniteness. To test this, I examine the behavior of possessive DPs with respect to two definiteness effects previously observed in Indonesian. The first definiteness effect is that grammatical subjects in Indonesian must be definite or specific, or else interpreted as generic (Sneddon et al. 2012). As previously discussed in Section 4.2.1, the definiteness of the possessor determines whether the DP is definite; in subject position, possessive DPs must have definite possessors. This rules out (92) and (93):

If -nya adds definite semantics, it might be expected to ameliorate the ungrammaticality of these indefinite subjects. However, (94) and (95) show that adding -nya does not count for subject definiteness:

The possessive DPs are licit in object position and as head of a cleft (96-97), showing that it is only the definiteness requirement for subjects that rules out (94-95). Existential clauses formed with ada provide a second diagnostic for definiteness. An argument that follows ada must be indefinite:13

(98)

Ada tiga orang dengan nama Wahyu di keluarga kami. Exist three person with name Wahyu at family 1p.Excl ‘There are three people with the name Wahyu in our famiy.’

(99)

*Ada orang itu dengan nama Wahyu. Exist person that with name Wahyu (‘There is the person with the name Wahyu.’)

(100)

*Ada bola itu di atas atap. Exist ball that at top roof (‘There is the ball on the roof.’)

As expected, a possessive DP with a definite possessor cannot follow ada, as in (101). However, some possessive DPs with a definite possessor can have an indefinite interpretation if they are not unique, as in (102-103).

Ada presiden Indonesia yang perempuan. Exist president Indonesian C.Foc female ‘There was a president of Indonesia that was female.’

(103)

Ada bola Tono di atas atap. Exist ball Tono at top roof ‘There is a ball of Tono’s on the roof.’

The question is whether -nya adds definiteness to these possessive DPs. If the possessive suffix -nya encodes definiteness in possessive contexts, then we expect it will be incompatible with the existential ada construction. This is shown in (104):

(104)

Ada bola-nya Tono di atas atap. Exist ball-D Tono at top roof ‘There is a ball of Tono’s on the roof.’

This shows that the indefinite interpretation is still possible with the possessive suffix -nya, which does not cause the DP to pattern as a definite. To summarize this section, I have laid out evidence to support two complementary claims, that -nya is not a resumptive pronoun in possessor extraction; and that -nya is a type of agreement. I have proposed that -nya in possessive DPs as agreement with a possessor, whether the possessor is in situ, pro or A-bar moved. The distribution and form of this morpheme suggests that it is the pronunciation of the functional head D, which encodes definiteness elsewhere in the language. Extending this analysis to related languages, we have previously seen that in Javanese and Madurese, the suffix on the possessum is always obligatory, even with internal possessors (refer to 59a-60c). Javanese and Madurese, then, have obligatory possessor agreement on the noun (possessum), whether the possessor is overt, pro or extracted from the DP. Indonesian differs from this pattern only in that possessor agreement is optional with an internal possessor.

148

4.4. A derivational analysis for possessor extraction Having argued for a movement analysis for clefted possessors at the left periphery, in this section I propose that a possessor undergoes A-bar movement through the edge of DP, then the edge of VoiceP, before landing in its surface position in the CP domain. This movement is driven by edge features on D and Voice, which are phase heads. Other accounts of possessor extraction also propose that the DP specifier acts as an “escape hatch” for further movement. Szabolcsi (1992) observes that in Hungarian possessor extraction, possessors cannot move directly from their base-generated positions, but must pass through SpecDP. Szabolcsi notes that the specifier of DP is an operator position, and takes this to support the claim that DP and CP have parallel structure and operations, since possessor movement to SpecDP parallels the movement of Hungarian subjects to clause-initial position. This approach is also taken up in Gavruseva’s (2000) analysis of possessor extraction in Hungarian, Tzotzil and Chamorro. Gavruseva proposes that that possessors extract via the specifier of DP, driven by a strong uninterpretable Q feature on matrix D which attracts the possessor. I follow both Gavruseva and Szabolcsi in assuming that the possessor extracts through the specifier of DP; see also discussion in Boeckx 2003. Cole and Hermon (1998) reach a similar conclusion for the movement of a null operator in complementizer-gap relativization in Malay. This approach has two implications. For Indonesian, I show that possessor extraction data support movement through the edge of DP, indicating that D is a phase head that drives successivecyclic movement of nominals. Second, I draw a parallel between the obligatory morphology on the possessum (-nya) and the morphological effects of nominal movement through VoiceP and CP in this language, which I have argued are a morphological wh-agreement. In Indonesian, I attempt to unify the morphological effects of A-bar movement through the edge of DP, VoiceP and CP as wh-agreement.

149

4.4.1. Movement through SpecDP I propose a derivation for possessor extraction in two steps: A-bar movement through the edge of DP, followed by A-bar movement through the edge of VoiceP. I assume that all cases of A-bar extraction result in a pseudo-cleft, and that it is a null Operator that moves phase-cyclically through the clause. Arguments for null Operator movement are given in Chapter 2, and apply to possessor movement as well. In the discussion below, I refer generally to “possessor movement” or “possessor extraction” for ease of exposition, and represent movement with a possessor, as the distinction does not significantly affect the discussion. For the pseudo-cleft structure with null Operator movement, see the tree structure in (123). I assume that the possessor is generated in the specifier of NP, as an external argument of N; recall that the possessor can have a number of different semantic relations with the possessum in these languages, and is not limited to relations that are inalienable, part-whole etc. The possessum is the head N, while the suffix -nya is the head D. The word order of possessive DPs is derived by head movement of N to D, resulting in -nya optionally suffixed to the possessum. This structure is shown in (106):

(105)

rumah(-nya) Adi house-D Adi ‘Adi’s house’

(106)

Possessive DP structure

150

DP D0 NP

D NP ossessum

D

DPP ossessor

N0

rumah

(-nya)

Adi

Npossessum rumah

The following examples provide evidence for the structure in (106). First consider possessive DPs with postnominal complements:

(107)

buku [cerita anak] book story child ‘book of children’s stories’

(108)

*buku [cerita anak] Siti book story child Siti

(109)

*buku [cerita anak] -nya Siti book story child -D Siti

(110)

*buku-nya [cerita anak] Siti book-D story child Siti

(111)

buku Siti [tentang cerita anak] book Siti about story child ‘Siti’s book about children’s stories’

When a possessor is present, the nominal complements cannot occur between the possessum and possessor (108-110). Instead, a periphrastic construction must be used, with the possessor embedded in a PP (111). A similar pattern holds for PP adjuncts that modify the head noun. The PP is usually postnominal, but cannot occur between possessum and possessor:

These data support a head movement analysis for a simple possessum (N), which is always raised to D in possessive contexts. When the possessum is complex, nominal complements and modifiers cannot occur between the possessum and possessor, but rather require periphrastic constructions.14 14 A few adjectives can occur between the possessum and possessor, and may occur inside the suffix -nya. For example, adjectives denoting size, material or origin:

Given the limited number of these adjectives, and the high frequency with which they are used with the head N, I treat these as compounds that may also undergo head-raising to D.

152

In the first step of possessor extraction, the possessor undergoes movement driven by an edge feature on the functional head D. I call this edge feature [EPP-D], because it does not check an argument in situ, but must be satisfied by attracting a DP to its specifier; and the feature targets DPs only. A DP constituent may be clefted or relativized, whereas PP, AP and other adjuncts cannot.

[EPP-D] on the head D probes downward for the closest DP in its c-command domain and finds the possessor orang. This DP is attracted to the specifier of DP. Szabolcsi (1992), writing about possessor extraction in Hungarian, noted the similarity between C and D in terms of movement possibilities: “both are functional categories whose SPEC is a designated landing site for operators and serves as an escape hatch for movement” (1992:43). A possessor that has first moved to the specifier of a possessive DP is available for further movement. As previously discussed, either the maximal DP projection (the possessive DP) or its specifier (the possessor) can be extracted. The difference between these has to do with focus: all

153

extracted nominals are focused since they result in a cleft construction. If the possessor DP is focused, it can be extracted; otherwise, the matrix DP is focused and the entire possessive DP is extracted. Therefore I assume that D bears both [EPP-D] and [Focus] features, and that these features probe together. [EPP-D] targets only DPs, and [Focus] targets the DP that is marked for pragmatic prominence. In the derivation discussed here, I assume that the possessor DP is marked for focus, but the matrix DP is not. From SpecDP, the possessor next undergoes successive-cyclic movement through the edge of VoiceP, before landing in its surface position in the CP domain. I assume that the extended verbal structure of the clause includes both vP and VoiceP, which I take to be the highest verbal projection and the domain relevant for successive-cyclic movement, or a phase.15 The voice prefixes on the verb are the spellout of the functional head Voice. In basic active clauses, this head is realized as meN-. It is this head that is also phonologically null when there is extraction from object position. External arguments are generated in the specifier of VoiceP (Pylkkanen 2002; Harley 2013; Legate 2014) and raised to the position of grammatical subjects, SpecIP, to satisfy [EPP] on I.16,17 In an active clause, the derivation of possessor extraction from object position begins with an active Voice head that bears the feature [EPP-D]. The [EPP-D] feature was previously discussed for DP-internal movement: it attracts the closest DP to its specifier, but does not target other categories such as PP or AP. [EPP-D] on Voice triggers movement through the edge of the verbal domain. This type of movement is proposed in Chomsky 1986, 2000 (through the edge of vP) and also proposed for a number of analyses in Indonesian and Austronesian languages (Rackowski and Richards 2005; Aldridge 2008, 2017; Cole et al. 2008b; Sato 2008b, 2012; Legate 2014; van Urk and Richards 2015). These authors agree that in these languages, one of the functions of voice morphology is to mark nominal movement through the edge of the phase. For nominals in object position, the feature [EPP-D] on Voice attracts the closest DP that 15

Causative prefixes in these languages are hosted in vP (cf. Legate 2014). These prefixes do not interact with possessor extraction. 16 In active voice, the derived subject position generally must be filled in these languages. VP fronting is also possible in active voice, resulting in variations in word order, but does not occur with the clefts and relatives that are discussed here. 17 I use IP instead of TP because tense is not overtly marked in Indonesian clauses.

154

it c-commands, and raises it to SpecVoiceP where [EPP-D] is checked. This is illustrated below. Note that the tree in (123) shows the possessor as a null Operator, which undergoes phase-cyclic movement within the clause. This CP is embedded in a copular sentence in (124), with the lexical possessor orang generated as predicate (see Chapter 2 for discussion of the cleft structure).

In (123) the possessor is tucked in below the specifier hosting the external argument (cf. Richards 1999). Assuming [EPP-D] targets the closest DP eligible for movement, the external argument rather than the possessor is raised to SpecIP. 19 (123) shows the root baca read in the node V. The formation of the phonological word that includes the heads Voice-v-V is not shown here.

155

CP C0

DP orang

IP

C [Focus] ∅

I0

DP OP yang adik baca

I

PredP

buku-nya Pred0

DP

Pred ∅

DP orang

The moved nominal may be either the object, or the possessor of the object, depending on which DP is focused. (DP-internal movement is not shown in 123.) If the possessor is focused, it moves to the edge of the DP; from SpecVoiceP, the possessor is available for futher movement. If the possessive DP is focused, no DP-internal movement is required. A [Focus] feature on C probes for a DP with [Focus] and finds the possessor in SpecVoiceP. Although Voice in active clauses is usually pronounced as the prefix meN-, when Voice bears the feature [EPP-D], triggering obligatory movement, it is realized as a null prefix, ∅- (for related discussion of the null prefix in cases of extraction, see Cole and Hermon 2005; Cole et al. 2008b; Sato 2008b, 2012. This analysis holds for Javanese and polite Madurese as well, as these languages allow object extraction and object possessor extraction. In familiar Madurese however, since objects and their possessors cannot extract, the active Voice head cannot bear the [EPP-D] feature. Nominals cannot raise to the edge of VoiceP from object position; consequently, [Focus] on C does not find an object bearing a [Focus] feature because it cannot probe into a lower phase. As a result, objects and their possessors cannot be extracted in familiar Madurese; and since Voice never bears the [EPP-D] feature, active verbs always bear a voice prefix. For the external argument (and its possessor) in an active clause, movement to a higher position does not require [EPP-D] on the Voice head, because the external argument is generated in the specifier of Voice and therefore is already on the edge 156

of the phase; it is visible for further movement. The [EPP-D] feature on I first raises the external argument to the grammatical subject position in SpecIP, where it may then be found by a probe on C. Since the external argument in an active clause does not interact with [EPP-D] on the Voice head, extraction of this nominal never has consequences for voice morphology; a bare verb is not required for subject extraction. Similarly, the internal argument (and its possessor) in a passive clause are first raised to grammatical subject, and can be extracted from SpecIP. The passive voice morphology is required when the internal argument occurs as subject; however, further extraction from subject position is not reflected by a change of verbal morphology.

4.5. Implications of possessor extraction in Indonesian 4.5.1. Phase head D and wh-agreement Successive-cyclic movement through vP and CP was proposed in Chomsky 2000 and Chomsky 2001, and implemented in analyses of many languages. For discussion in Indonesian-type languages, see Aldridge 2008; Cole et al. 2008; Sato 2008, 2010; Legate 2014. In this thesis, I have agreed with previous work in Indonesian that supports successive-cyclic movement through the edge of the verbal domain, and through the edge of CP. This chapter argues, based on possessor extraction, that phase-cyclic movement can proceed through the edge of DP as well. I have argued that in Indonesian, possessors are DP-internal arguments that undergo A-bar movement through the edge of DP before continuing on to SpecVoiceP and SpecCP. The main evidence for successive-cyclic movement in Indonesian is the required morphology on the phase head, D. The obligatory suffix -nya is a type of wh-agreement: it marks DP-internal A-bar movement to a specifier position. I have proposed that D can bear an [EPP-D] feature, which targets DPs only, and can only be checked by overt movement. The other phase heads, Voice and C, can also bear [EPP-D], which drives A-bar movement in local steps through each phase. The presence of [EPP-D] requires wh-agreement on each phase head. The phasehood of DP in Indonesian provides a new pattern of wh-agreement. Recall that

Possessor extraction extends this generalization beyond complementizers and verbs, since whagreement is also marked within the DP. The generalization is at least incomplete, and should be revised to include wh-agreement observed in the nominal domain. But I also suggest that Zaenen’s generalization is better reframed with reference to syntactic phases instead of syntactic binding domains: Indonesian shows wh-agreement in the nominal, verbal and complementizer domains because DP, VoiceP and CP are syntactic phases in this language. This expands the range of possible wh-agreement patterns to any syntactic phase that allows A-bar movement through its edge. As noted by Zaenen (1983) and Reintges et al. (2006), not all languages have morphological whagreement when A-bar (wh-) movement obtains. Therefore wh-agreement is expected to be possible, but not required, whenever phase-based movement applies through a phase edge. 4.5.2. EPP and subject extraction Possessor extraction also shows that in Indonesian, the position of grammatical subject generally must be filled, and that this requirement is satisfied before A-bar extraction from the clause. As previously discussed, subject extraction is possible in Indonesian (as well as Javanese and Madurese), and does not impose special requirements on verbal morphology like object extraction; see examples throughout this chapter. I have assumed that grammatical subjects occupy a structural position, the specifier of IP, and that all subjects are derived by A-movement to this position. Since Indonesian generally requires a grammatical subject (whether overt or pro), I take this to mean that an [EPP] feature on I is filled by A movement. In the context of areal languages, Indonesian-type languages and Philippine-type languages are historically related. The syntax of Indonesian-type languages deviates from Philippine-type

158

syntax to varying degrees, especially with regard to the voice system and argument extraction. (For discussion of Indonesian-type syntax and Philippine-type syntax, see Wouk and Ross 2002; Himmelmann 2005; Cole et al. 2008b). In Philippine-type languages such as Tagalog, it is possible to extract various thematic arguments from within the clause. This extraction does not require overt movement to a “subject” position; rather, verbal morphology marks which argument has been extracted. (For various analyses of Tagalog syntax, see Kroeger 1993; Aldridge 2004; Rackowski and Richards 2005; Aldridge 2017, among others. ) Indonesian deviates from Philippine languages in filling the structural subject position, independent of extraction. However, this is usually not directly observed. Consider the following sentences in active, object and passive voices. In the (a)-examples, the grammatical subject is shown in its surface position, and the position from which it has undergone movement is shown as a gap. The external argument in (126) is generated in SpecVoiceP; the internal arguments in (127) and (128) are generated in post-verbal position as the complement of V. In the (b)-examples, the clefted (extracted) argument has the same thematic role as the grammatical subject in (a)-examples. Note however, that it is not obvious if the argument has been extracted from derived subject position, or from its base position.

The question is whether the clefted DP in the b-examples can be extracted directly from its base (thematic) position, without movement to SpecIP. In other words, it is not clear whether the EPP feature on I must first be satisfied in cases of A-bar extraction. If EPP does not need to be satisfied when extraction occurs, this would mean that extraction in Indonesian preserves a Philippine-type flavor. Possessor extraction provides a way to test this type of movement. I have previously noted that DP extraction from a particular position is correlated with possessor sub-extraction from the same argument. If a possessor is able to extract directly from thematic position, then the possessum should be able to occur in situ, with no grammatical subject. The following examples test this possibility:

(129)

Active voice mem-baca buku itu? *Siapa yang akan teman-nya that who C.Foc will friend-D AV-read book ‘Who is it that (his) friend will read the book?’

Passive voice *Siapa yang di-baca buku-nya ? who C.Foc PV-read book-D ‘Who was it that (his) book was read?’

160

This data shows that when the grammatical subject position has not been filled, DP extraction directly from thematic base position is not possible. The EPP feature on I, then, must be satisfied in order for the sentence to be well-formed; after the DP raises to the specifier of IP to check EPP, it is available for further A-bar movement. (See also Jeoung 2017:28 for a similar argument in Madurese, which also requires the grammatical subject position to be filled.) It is worth noting that although the subject position generally must be filled in Indonesian, there are exceptions. For example, if a passive clause or adjectival predicate embeds a CP, then the subject position remains empty:

The English expletive it is used to translate these sentences; Indonesian does not have a corresponding expletive element that occurs in subject position. In (132-133), satisfaction of EPP conflicts with another language-internal constraint: sentential subjects are not possible for my consultants, nor can CPs be extracted with the cleft strategy (see Chapter 2):

Since CPs are disallowed as subjects in SpecIP, and no other local DP is available to check EPP, the subject position remains unfilled. Furthermore, sub-extraction from the embedded CP is not possible for sentences like (134a), in which no argument has been raised to subject position in the matrix clause:

(135)

menang? *Siapa yang sudah di-umum-kan win who C.Foc already PV-public-Appl (‘Who is it that it was already announced (he) won?’)

4.5.3. Revisiting A-bar extraction in Indonesian-type languages Possessor extraction also brings new insight to analyses of Indonesian-type voice systems (like that of Indonesian, Javanese and Madurese). I discuss two issues: the role of Voice in regulating DP movement through the clause, and Cole, Hermon and Yanti’s Voice Agreement Hypothesis for Indonesian. First, A-bar movement of possessors in Indonesian shows that Voice is concerned with the movement of all DPs, not only verbal arguments, because possessors are arguments of N rather than arguments of V. Whereas morphological voice marking typically indicates the position of verbal arguments (for example, the Theme in an active clause remains low, while the Theme in a passive clause occurs as subject), when nominal extraction has occurred, null voice morphology also serves as a reflex of nominal movement through VoiceP. When sub-extraction of the possessor from object position occurs in Indonesian, Javanese and polite Madurese, the null voice prefix is required (just as when the full object DP is extracted). The object of the verb has not shifted, since the head N, the possessum, remains in its merged position. Yet extraction of a non-argument, the possessor, requires that the voice morphology reflect that a DP has moved through the edge of VoiceP. It is interesting that movement of the possessor is constrained by Voice in the same way that verbal arguments are; this shows that the voice system regulates the movement of any DP that shifts out of VoiceP. This is not only true of possessors, but also arguments extracted from an embedded 162

clause (see Chapter 3). This means that the head Voice not only determines argument structure of the clause (i.e. transitivity; or whether an external argument is hosted in its specifier), but also A-bar movement of all VoiceP-internal arguments. Possessor extraction In Indonesian, Javanese and Madurese also calls for a re-examination of analyses of DP extraction in Indonesian-type languages. Recall that in these languages, null voice morphology marks object extraction. Cole, Hermon and Yanti (2008) propose the Voice Agreement Hypothesis for Indonesian, a language-specific morphological rule that requires agreement between the shifted nominal and the morphological voice marker on the verb. Either the case or the thematic role of the DP must be marked on the verb; a morphological filter prevents conflicting features on the verb and the extracted DP. Possessors present a challenge to this type of analysis because both the object (matrix DP) and its possessor can be extracted with a null voice marker. I assume that abstract genitive or possessive case is assigned to the possessor, while its matrix DP bears abstract accusative case. Under the Voice Agreement Hypothesis, both types of nominals could not extract with the same null voice prefix. A similar argument applies to a mismatch in theta roles between an argument and its possessor.20 Despite the difficulties that possessor extraction poses to this analysis, the Voice Agreement Hypothesis essentially proposes that object extraction requires morphological agreement. In this thesis I have also adopted this general approach, that the null voice morphology required in cases of object extraction is wh-agreement. This type of wh-agreement does not register any particular features of the A-bar moved nominal (at least in Indonesian); neither Case features nor thematic role is morphologically marked in wh-agreement. Like other wh-agreement in other languages, DPinternal features are also not marked. Rather, it is only movement through the edge of VoiceP that is marked by the null prefix. 20

This analysis faces further challenges when a subject undergoes long distance extraction from an embedded clause (see Saddy 1991 for extended discussion). Long-distance subject movement also requires a bare verb, collapsing the case/thematic distinction between subjects and objects.

163

4.5.4. Implications for the left periphery in Indonesian Possessor extraction also provides new observations about the organization of the left periphery of the clause. I have argued that the availability of possessor extraction from object position, and the extraction of objects in general, is regulated low in the clause, by Voice. If a nominal can escape VoiceP (or is already on the edge of VoiceP), then it can undergo A-bar extraction. Languages like familiar Madurese, in which subjects can be extracted but objects cannot, do not allow Voice to bear an edge feature [EPP-D] that raises nominals to SpecVoiceP. Other theories offer an alternative explanation for the impossibility of object extraction in a language such as familiar Madurese. Some authors have accounted for “subject-only” extraction in some Austronesian languages (like familiar Madurese) by invoking a variation of Feature Inheritance (Chomsky 2008 and subsequent). Under C-T Feature Inheritance, uninterpretable features on T originate on C but are passed down (inherited). Among the relevant set of features involved, A-bar features remain on C while A features are passed down to T, thus deriving a distinction between A and A-bar positions and movement. Inheritance is motivated by the close relationship between C and T cross-linguistically. In Austronesian languages, Inheritance is further motivated by the properties of the highest or leftmost argument, which appears to have both A and A-bar properties. This follows if C and T are not distinct in these languages, but rather form a combined projection that hosts a single subject/topic/pivot argument. This suggests that both A and A-bar features remain on a single head, and that Inheritance does not apply. (See Richards 2001; Pearson 2005; Rackowski and Richards 2005; Fortuny 2008; Legate 2011, 2014 for discussion in various Austronesian languages; also see Aldridge (2017), Aldridge, to appear for an alternative view on the extraction restriction.) The theory of Feature Inheritance can be applied to familiar Madurese to account for the impossibility of object extraction in the following way. Legate (2011, 2014) proposes Underinheritance, in which the formal features on C fail to be inherited by T. The result is that CP and TP are not projected separately, but rather form a single combined projection: let us call this CTP. The

164

single specifier of CTP allows for only one argument to occupy this high position (a subject DP or topic DP), leaving no structural position for another DP. Therefore, object extraction is impossible in active clauses, because the external argument already occupies the single position available at the left periphery; this derives the subject-only restriction. The effect of Under-inheritance is that only one nominal can occur in a high position in the clause, which is empirically attested in a number of Austronesian languages including familiar Madurese. Alternatively, recent theories of head-splitting (Martinovi´c 2015; see also Erlewine 2017) posit that some of the features on a functional head can split off and re-project a new head. Headsplitting of CTP can also derive the traditional division between TP and CP: T is merged first, but some of its features split into a separate head, C. If this head does not split however, the single head (CT) could host only one argument in its specifier; just as with under-inheritance, a preverbal subject would prevent another argument from moving to a high position. According to Under-inheritance and failure of head-splitting, a structural explanation derives the subject-only restriction on extraction. If this type of structural account is correct for a language that does not allow any object extraction, then we expect that familiar Madurese could not host two arguments at the left periphery of the clause, because a single CTP projection hosts only one argument. Recall that objects cannot extract in familiar Madurese (55c is repeated here as (136):

The possessor and the possessum simultaneously occur in separate A and A-bar positions, the latter separated from the rest of the clause by the relative morpheme se. Possessor extraction, therefore, shows that under-inheritance and head splitting do not account for the impossibility of object extraction, at least in familiar Madurese. In familiar Madurese, a traditional split between C and T(I) remains, with (at least) two positions for nominals at the left periphery of the clause (SpecCP and SpecIP). For other languages of the area that do not allow object extraction, possessor extraction provides a useful diagnostic to test whether the left periphery of the clause allows two nominals.

4.6. Chapter summary I have shown that syntactic movement, rather than base generation, derives the surface position of external possessors in these languages. Possessors first escape their possessive DPs, triggering wh-agreement on the possessum; the suffix is not a resumptive pronoun as previously assumed, but pronunciation of the head D. The possessor is then extracted through the edge of VoiceP: a null voice prefix on the verb not only marks the extraction of an object, but must also mark the extraction of a possessor from object position. This is evidence that the functional head Voice regulates A-bar extraction of all nominals passing through its specifier. Possessor extraction provides support for D, Voice and C as phase heads in Indonesian (and related languages that have Indonesian-type syntax such as Javanese and Madurese). I have argued that an extracted possessor undergoes successive-cyclic movement through the edge of DP, then the edge of VoiceP, before landing in its surface position in CP. This syntactic movement is driven by the feature [EPP-D] on each phase head. Another implication of possessor extraction data is that the organization of the left periphery in these languages shows a structural distinction between CP and TP(IP), with a traditional division of features associated with C and T; theories of underinheritance of features or head-splitting do not adequately account for subject-only extraction. In sum, this paper has attempted to bring new data involving possessors to the rich discussion on voice and nominal extraction in Indonesian-type languages. Finally, this chapter has taken seriously the optional realization of -nya in Indonesian posses166

sive DPs. By treating the suffix as an optional morpheme in internal possession, I re-analyze -nya as an agreement morpheme, rather than a pronoun. This approach also allows comparison between Indonesian and related languages such as Javanese and Madurese, which have analogous suffixes in possessive DPs.

167

CHAPTER 5 Conclusion This dissertation has investigated several morphemes that display surface optionality in Indonesian, with a focus on syntactic environments that affect their variable realization. The investigation contributes novel data in Indonesian (as well as Javanese and Madurese, in Chapter 4), to describe syntactic operations and contexts that affect optional realization. Several patterns presented here, concerning the form and distribution of variable morphemes, were previously unreported in the literature; I highlight these here. For the system of declarative complementizers (Chapter 2), I have demonstrated, based on patterns in both local extraction and long-distance extraction, that yang is a form of C that occurs when a nominal undergoes A-bar movement lands in its specifier. I also observed that yang and null C display characteristic properties of morphological wh-agreement, and that the pattern of whagreement in Indonesian has not been previously attested: the highest C crossed by movement is marked differently from intermediate C. Another novel observation is that bahwa is disallowed in wh-in situ questions, while kalau can occur in some cases, a fact that is not accounted for by A-bar movement. Based on these patterns, I developed an analysis of wh-phrases and the structure of wh questions in Indonesian, incorporating insights from pseudo-cleft structure. For the verbal prefixes meN- and ber- (Chapter 3), I observed that the properties that have been reported for these morphemes fall into two types, deterministic factors and non-deterministic factors. This distinction revealed that several syntactic and semantic conditions disallow optional realization, requiring either meN-/ber- or a bare verb. In contrast, non-deterministic factors only affect probabilistic realization; this is implemented via variable rule. I also argued that the loss of optionality in case of A-bar movement is a type of wh-agreement on the verb. I strengthened the case for wh-agreement by showing that A movement does not cause meN- to delete, contrary to prior assumptions. In Chapter 4, I presented novel patterns of possessor extraction in Indonesian, Javanese and Madurese. I demonstrated that possessors can escape their DPs via successive-cyclic A-bar move-

168

ment, and showed that this results in a cross-linguistically unusual case of wh-agreement. I developed a novel analysis for the suffix -nya, which was previously assumed to be a possessive pronoun; under my analysis, -nya is a pronunciation of the head D, which is an instantiation of wh-agreement in the nominal domain. I also claimed that wh-agreement provides evidence that DP is a phase in this language. Each case study stands independently as an investigation of a particular aspect of optional morphology in this language, and the findings presented in each case further our understanding of the syntax and morphology of Indonesian complementizers, verbal prefixes and possessive DPs. The individual case studies are also unified under an analysis of morphological wh-agreement. I have claimed that wh-agreement occurs across three domains in Indonesian: complementizers, verbs and nouns. This analysis depends on acknowledging optional morphemes within a syntactic analysis. In the case of complementizers, the loss of optionality is indicative of wh-agreement. In the verbal domain, wh-agreement on Voice is marked by the loss of optionality in meN-/ber-. Likewise, the analysis of wh-agreement in the nominal domain depends on the observation that the suffix -nya is an optional form in possessive DPs in colloquial Indonesian. By considering optional realization as a property that merits attention, this dissertation presents an approach to analyzing optional morphemes which integrates a syntactic factors with extra-syntactic factors that affect surface variability.